GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[A64Pilot]

25 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

The base stock is the current avgas, with a proprietary blend added.

Adoption will come quickly if the EPA makes their endangerment finding.

 

So it’s essentially 94UL with an octane booster?

Makes one wonder if it couldn’t be blended on delivery into the airplane like Prist is?

[1980Mooney]

18 minutes ago, Yetti said:

so one day we were at a refinery redoing their tank management system.   I told the guy to see if he could find the 100LL storage tanks in the refined products tanks.  Apparently there were two of say 60 tanks.   So it really is just another refined product.  From the refinery point of view I would think they would be the ones to decide if it makes economical sense to change over the tanks from 100LL to this new fuel.   I think you are talking more about the trucks and stuff that deliver it.  They just have dedicated trucks so there is really no cleaning or such.

Of course there is cleaning of the refining/blending facilities at and after the point that TEL (lead) was added.  If the feedstocks for 100LL are in an aromatics tank prior to addition of TEL then that is not a problem.  But once the TEL is added and resides in tanks, pipes and valves, they want and need to demonstrate that theose tanks, pipelines, valves, etc. were cleaned of Lead (TEL).  They will also remediate that concrete and soil around those facilities.  They will want a clean line (date) of demarcation that TEL (lead) was no longer used in their plant.  Otherwise their liability goes on forever because they can't demonstrate to anyone when (or if they even made an effort) they cleaned their facility up.  If there are lawsuits in the future, they are the deep pockets that everyone will go after. Beleive me - they want that TEL liability gone. 

The distribution facilities and tank truck transfer stations will also need the same cleaning and remediation.

Once it is done they (the refiners/blenders/shippers/distributors) are never going back to 100LL.

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

There is a possible route where we may not need one, if the FAA says that G100L is approved as a 100 "octane" or "rating" so that it would be compliant via the TCDS.  It may not even be necessary for them to say that depending on how things get interpreted.   We don't know whether that will happen or not, or what of quite a few other possible outcomes may play out.   We may need an STC, we may not, the STC may be free if we need it, it may not.   Nobody knows yet.

You seem to have completely misunderstood the conversation as also evidenced by your suggestion that "a lot of people here are trying to cheap out".  

Perhaps some people are in an alternate reality.  The FAA has already weighed in.  They have awarded the STC to GAMI.  The interpretation is clear - GAMI is the STC Holder.  The STC is Intellectual Property which is wholly owned by GAMI.  GAMI chose the STC route and the FAA has approved it.  The FAA is not going to reverse its decision and socialistically give GAMI's STC away.  The FAA can't give it away. GAMI and only GAMI can control who has the right to use its STC - just like all STC's.

Edited September 4, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

I didn't say that it was an issue, except that it is not Grade 100 aviation fuel for a couple of reasons.

I would like to see that test.

And, I'd like to see a cite that PROVES that test (ASTM) is actually required!  The TCDS description is NOT such a citation.

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, 1980Mooney said:

Perhaps some people are in an alternate reality.  The FAA has already weighed in.  They have awarded the STC to GAMI.  The interpretation is clear - GAMI is the STC Holder.  The STC is Intellectual Property which is wholly owned by GAMI.  GAMI chose the STC route and the FAA has approved it.  The FAA is not going to reverse its decision and socialistically give GAMI's STC away.  The FAA can't give it away.

The FAA approved an STC application.  I'd be very surprised if granting an STC ties the FAAs hands on what they can do or can not do in this case.   I'm not aware of anything that would stop the FAA from approving the fuel, or a competing fuel, as meeting TCDS requirements, assuming that's even needed, which is still an open question, imho.   The STC may just be a step along the way.   

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

So a lot of people here are trying to cheap out for less than a month of hangar rent, risk a violation all because they don’t want to reward someone who has spent 12 years and huge amounts of capital. Do I have that right?

NO! You do NOT have it right.

I have no trouble with 'rewarding' someone who has earned my business. I will say that 'rewarding' is a pretty crappy term as I don't see how being forced to buy something from a monopoly could be described as a a reward; more like blackmail: want to fly your GA piston plane?  Pony up the the bucks for the STC and, by the way, a 'rewarding' premium tacked onto every gallon of avgas you buy!  Do you believe GAMI's 12 year efforts make them entitled to a government sanctioned monopoly with FAA thugs inside every GA pump to jump out and ground your plane should you not have a valid "Braly" STC???  That's your idea of a just and equitable way for this to play out?

Do I have that right?

If the option to purchase either 100LL or G100UL was being proposed I'd actually be happy about the new product introduction; competition would sort it out.  The premium per gallon would likely be tolerable and those that believe that they would save tens of thousands of dollars in oil changes and maintenance could buy all they want.  And, CBs could continue to buy 100LL.  In that environment GAMI would likely offer free STCs to encourage the royalty stream from purchased fuel.

But, with the EPA and the "sky is falling crowd" I just don't see that scenario playing out. Not to mention the dual delivery streams, tanks, etc. that would be required.

[MikeOH]

24 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Perhaps some people are in an alternate reality.  The FAA has already weighed in.  They have awarded the STC to GAMI.  The interpretation is clear - GAMI is the STC Holder.  The STC is Intellectual Property which is wholly owned by GAMI.  GAMI chose the STC route and the FAA has approved it.  The FAA is not going to reverse its decision and socialistically give GAMI's STC away.  The FAA can't give it away. GAMI and only GAMI can control who has the right to use its STC - just like all STC's.

And, YOU don't have a problem with that TOTAL monopoly????

Unfrickin' believable!

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

So a lot of people here are trying to cheap out for less than a month of hangar rent, risk a violation all because they don’t want to reward someone who has spent 12 years and huge amounts of capital. Do I have that right?

I know I am not as technologically astute as most of you and I may be missing something, but to me the issue is not dollars and cents. 

For the FAA to demand I produce a paper proving airplane gas is safe for my airplane even though they just declared airplane gas is safe for airplanes is so incoherent it smacks not of a safety concern but just plain bullying. This is why I so detest the requirement to get an STC. I don’t care if it’s free. 

As far as the fellow who developed the fuel, we are going to be buying his product!! How is he being stiffed?? If most of the consensus on this forum is true, his product will be the only fuel you can buy!

Can you imagine going to the store to buy an electric fan for your bedroom and being forced to provide a government paper declaring your bedroom is safe for an electric fan? If that was the case, I would suggest that fewer folks would buy that electric fan thus harming the manufacturer of said fan, not helping him!

What I am I missing?

[T. Peterson]

27 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

NO! You do NOT have it right.

I have no trouble with 'rewarding' someone who has earned my business. I will say that 'rewarding' is a pretty crappy term as I don't see how being forced to buy something from a monopoly could be described as a a reward; more like blackmail: want to fly your GA piston plane?  Pony up the the bucks for the STC and, by the way, a 'rewarding' premium tacked onto every gallon of avgas you buy!  Do you believe GAMI's 12 year efforts make them entitled to a government sanctioned monopoly with FAA thugs inside every GA pump to jump out and ground your plane should you not have a valid "Braly" STC???  That's your idea of a just and equitable way for this to play out?

Do I have that right?

If the option to purchase either 100LL or G100UL was being proposed I'd actually be happy about the new product introduction; competition would sort it out.  The premium per gallon would likely be tolerable and those that believe that they would save tens of thousands of dollars in oil changes and maintenance could buy all they want.  And, CBs could continue to buy 100LL.  In that environment GAMI would likely offer free STCs to encourage the royalty stream from purchased fuel.

But, with the EPA and the "sky is falling crowd" I just don't see that scenario playing out. Not to mention the dual delivery streams, tanks, etc. that would be required.

AMEN!! Our culture has been so under assault by government bullying that many no longer even recognize it, much less stand up to it. Next step will be the FAA hiring 10,000 gun toting ramp checkers! LOL!

[ReconMax]

6 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

For the FAA to demand I produce a paper proving airplane gas is safe for my airplane even though they just declared airplane gas is safe for airplanes is so incoherent it smacks not of a safety concern but just plain bullying. This is why I so detest the requirement to get an STC. I don’t care if it’s free.

Have we reached Peak Regulation? Some of the 3-letter agencies are being taken to task right now. Many have overstepped the authority granted to them by Congress in the laws that brought them into existence. There are a number of the alphabet soup agencies whose very existence is being threatened by their own incomprehensible and incongruous regulations. It's quite funny in some cases.

[GeeBee]

36 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

NO! You do NOT have it right.

I have no trouble with 'rewarding' someone who has earned my business. I will say that 'rewarding' is a pretty crappy term as I don't see how being forced to buy something from a monopoly could be described as a a reward; more like blackmail: want to fly your GA piston plane?  Pony up the the bucks for the STC and, by the way, a 'rewarding' premium tacked onto every gallon of avgas you buy!  Do you believe GAMI's 12 year efforts make them entitled to a government sanctioned monopoly with FAA thugs inside every GA pump to jump out and ground your plane should you not have a valid "Braly" STC???  That's your idea of a just and equitable way for this to play out?

Do I have that right?

If the option to purchase either 100LL or G100UL was being proposed I'd actually be happy about the new product introduction; competition would sort it out.  The premium per gallon would likely be tolerable and those that believe that they would save tens of thousands of dollars in oil changes and maintenance could buy all they want.  And, CBs could continue to buy 100LL.  In that environment GAMI would likely offer free STCs to encourage the royalty stream from purchased fuel.

But, with the EPA and the "sky is falling crowd" I just don't see that scenario playing out. Not to mention the dual delivery streams, tanks, etc. that would be required.

Tell me what is the purpose of a patent ?

[MikeOH]

13 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

AMEN!! Our culture has been so under assault by government bullying that many no longer even recognize it, much less stand up to it. Next step will be the FAA hiring 10,000 gun toting ramp checkers! LOL!

Nah, the IRS will just loan the FAA 10,000 from the 87,000 for a year or two until the scofflaws are all grounded!

[Will.iam]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I didn't say that it was an issue, except that it is not Grade 100 aviation fuel for a couple of reasons.

I would like to see that test.

I found an audio interview with baley talking about the faa test. Unfortunately I can’t find the written transcript i saw before but if you look at this youtube video starting about 27 mins and 30 seconds into it he explains how they arrived at getting every piston engine certified even the old warbirds that needed 130 octane fuel. 
 

https://youtu.be/tMRTOEuyd4Q
 

 

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Tell me what is the purpose of a patent ?

To protect the inventor for a period of time to allow him to profit from his invention and get back his investment without having it stolen by a competitor, perhaps better capitalized to take advantage of it.

For like the TENTH time I would have ZERO issue with this if it were not for the MONOPOLY GAMI has been granted by the FAA.  Again, for like the TENTH time if 100UL remains available I have ZERO issue with George/GAMI making what they can.  I doubt, for all the reasons already beaten to death, that is going to be the case.

We will be a market FORCED to buy his product at whatever price he sets (no, not the pump price, but the price he demands for his IP/patents that WILL flow down to us at the pump) enforced, as some of you are apparently perfectly happy with, government ramp checkers!

How you are ok with this is simply beyond belief

[T. Peterson]

23 minutes ago, ReconMax said:

Have we reached Peak Regulation? Some of the 3-letter agencies are being taken to task right now. Many have overstepped the authority granted to them by Congress in the laws that brought them into existence. There are a number of the alphabet soup agencies whose very existence is being threatened by their own incomprehensible and incongruous regulations. It's quite funny in some cases.

I sure hope you are right, but the cynical side of me fears that any bureaucratic accountability is smoke and mirrors.

[Will.iam]

4 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I sure hope you are right, but the cynical side of me fears that any bureaucratic accountability is smoke and mirrors.

Time for that hamburger run tory!

[GeeBee]

The FAA has granted no one a monopoly. Some one else can develop a 100UL fuel, get it certified by the FAA and sell it. In fact they could go the EAGLE route rather than STC, demand a small stipend for the use of its patents per gallon and put G100UL out of business.

What you are talking about is anti-trust, and there is no anti-trust issue here. There is no prohibitions to entering the market in the same manner as GAMI.

When you are dealing with pollution regulations, there is often times when only one manufacture can create the technology for compliance. Nissan was the first to make SCR work for diesels. Navistar went a different direction, but Nissan's ultimately was adopted by a lot of manufacturers as Navistars was deemed problematic even though it complied.

Same with outboard motors. When they banned two strokes on some lakes, Honda was in the catbird's seat. Then others like Yamaha came along and accomplished similar feats.

 

[Cruiser]

First, he was not granted a MONOPOLY, he was granted an STC and if Shell or any other entity wants to submit its product for FAA approval they are free to do so. 
Until 100LL is banned, your concerns are .... well, concerns. 

In the meantime, the aviation high-performance fleet is going to continue to be supported .

 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

The FAA has granted no one a monopoly. Some one else can develop a 100UL fuel, get it certified by the FAA and sell it. In fact they could go the EAGLE route rather than STC, demand a small stipend for the use of its patents per gallon and put G100UL out of business.

What you are talking about is anti-trust, and there is no anti-trust issue here. There is no prohibitions to entering the market in the same manner as GAMI.

When you are dealing with pollution regulations, there is often times when only one manufacture can create the technology for compliance. Nissan was the first to make SCR work for diesels. Navistar went a different direction, but Nissan's ultimately was adopted by a lot of manufacturers as Navistars was deemed problematic even though it complied.

Same with outboard motors. When they banned two strokes on some lakes, Honda was in the catbird's seat. Then others like Yamaha came along and accomplished similar feats.

 

Not in the legal sense, but by any pragmatic definition they most certainly have the second the EPA bans 100LL.

Your arguments about how competitors are free to develop other products is specious to that point.  Ours is NOT a market like your outboard motor analogy: they did NOT ban two-strokes on ALL lakes and waterways in the entire United States; you at least had the option to go elsewhere.  Similarly, your Nissan example...all vehicles NOT using their technology were not banned from operation like our planes will be unless we pay the Braly piper.

This absolutely NOT a free market situation that is developing.

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

Until 100LL is banned, your concerns are .... well, concerns. 

In the meantime, the aviation high-performance fleet is going to continue to be supported .

 

I'm in 100% agreement with you.  Banning of 100LL is absolutely my concern.

And, I'm more than happy to welcome G100UL as long as 100LL remains available.  Let the market decide what premium it's willing to pay!

[A64Pilot]

33 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

How you are ok with this is simply beyond belief

Many are not OK with it, but what choice do we have? Do you think a bunch of pilots can influence the outcome?

This is what I think, I think his proprietary formula isn’t the only way to skin a cat, I think pretty quickly someone could duplicate his formula’s results with enough differences to not infringe on his IP, if there is enough money in it.

What would make it so there was enough money in it, would be for him to overcharge, so if he does I think pretty quickly he would have competition.

In a similar vein, I think if his royalties were out of line, he’s not getting any takers to produce his product.

Plus as has been stated if his royalty was only 10c per gl, he gets 15 mil a year, 20c 30 mil. 20c is I think not gouging and even though I’m sure he has others he has to share it with, surely 30 mil a yr is enough?

He has several reasons to keep the price down, and the only one I can think of for jacking it up, is short time profits.

There is a precedent for fuel STC’s I know of two auto fuel ones and other than the STC itself, they did nothing to the fuel.

On edit, I’m thinking about buying another tank, LL has a very long storage life, maybe I could ferret away enough fuel if I timed it right until whatever happens settles out.

[A64Pilot]

Think about it, California is / has banned ICE cars, you think for a second they have a problem banning lead?

[GeeBee]

10 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I'm in 100% agreement with you.  Banning of 100LL is absolutely my concern.

And, I'm more than happy to welcome G100UL as long as 100LL remains available.  Let the market decide what premium it's willing to pay!

They are not going to let you burn leaded fuel.

 

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Many are not OK with it, but what choice do we have? Do you think a bunch of pilots can influence the outcome?

This is what I think, I think his proprietary formula isn’t the only way to skin a cat, I think pretty quickly someone could duplicate his formula’s results with enough differences to not infringe on his IP, if there is enough money in it.

What would make it so there was enough money in it, would be for him to overcharge, so if he does Inthink pretty quickly he would have competition.

In a similar vein, I think if his royalties were out of line, he’s not getting any takers to produce his product.

Plus as has been stated if his royalty was only 10c per gl, he gets 15 mil a year, 20c 30 mil. 20c is I think not gouging and even though I’m sure he has others he has to share it with, surely 30 mil a yr is enough?

He has several reasons to keep the price down, and the only one I can think of for jacking it up, is short time profits.

There is a precedent for fuel STC’s I know of two auto fuel ones and other than the STC itself, they did nothing to the fuel.

Let's take your points one by one:

1) From some of the posts it sure appears that some are OK with it!  And, I agree, we are going to have ZERO influence on the outcome.  That is where my angst originates; we helpless to influence something that affects us.  Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

2) Agreed. The key phrase is "if there is enough money in it". IIRC, Shell et al. have tried and gave up, however.  So, I'm not quite so optimistic.  Shell and the other big players may view this GAMI fuel as manna from heaven as they must be under environment group and government pressure to get rid of lead in avgas. It must be a TINY part of their revenue stream; why screw with finding an alternative?

3) It took him 12 years, and other, larger companies, gave up!  I think he could gouge us for a VERY long time before someone develops the product, gets it approved, and enters the market.

4) So, sorry, but I see absolutely NO reason for him to keep his prices down.  What would you do?  How much is enough per year? Heck, maybe you'd only tack on a penny a year, right?  That'd be $1,000,000 per year.  Oh, wait if you make it 10 cents, you can have that P51 you've always wanted.  Ah, that's the number....oh, but the family wants to travel to Europe whenever they want...cue up the G-V...that 20 to 30 cents a gallon is looking better and better...

5) Isn't this EXACTLY the criticism of capitalism?  Short term profits vs. the long term 'best' solution?  Give me one reason why George/GAMI wont' do the same thing?  He's a "Pilot" so that would never happen just doesn't cut it for me.

[MikeOH]

11 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Think about it, California is / has banned ICE cars, you think for a second they have a problem banning lead?

Not sure whom you were responding to?

But, of course they are going to ban lead in avgas in a heartbeat!  That's the whole point of my concerns!