Innospec, the world’s last recognized producer of tetraethyl lead, has broken its long silence on the future of the octane booster and says “no firm timelines on the cessation of TEL-B production have been made and that we will communicate any future decisions regarding TEL-B production to all relevant GA stakeholders.” As the lone supplier of the highly toxic chemical (beyond shadowy suppliers said to be operating in China) Innospec says it knows its vital role in GA. “Crucially, we fully recognize our responsibility to the GA industry as the last manufacturer of tetraethyl lead in the world and the key role we will have in ensuring that 100 low-lead fuel is available during
any transition to unleaded fuel,” the company said in a statement to AvBrief.
The company’s role came into sharp focus with the revelations that the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) group could miss its target of 2030 to have a fully functional replacement for 100LL fuel. Former FAA Deputy Administrator told a forum at AirVenture he would not put a firm date on the arrival of a replacement fuel because there are outstanding issues to be dealt with. The agency, in the first version of a transition plan to unleaded gas, admitted that a perfect unleaded replacement for 100LL is “not feasible.” The equivocation caused concerns that a widely reported plan by Innospec to wind down TEL production by 2030 would orphan thousands of aircraft. Although Innospec is still not setting a date for its withdrawal from the TEL business, the statement suggests it will keep the chemical available beyond 2030 if it’s still needed. Here’s the full statement.
Lets kick the can down the road. It was all a hoax. Nobody will have to put unleaded fuel in their airplanes. Ever. Phew!
This announcement has the eerily familiar feel of a CEO stating at an all-hands meeting “we have no plans for a reduction in force at this time”. Which really means BOHICA, one is coming; I’ve seen this one before.
We are an unpopular community reliant on a very scarce resource, provided by a single supplier at great difficulty, and of which the very best you can say is “the negative impacts are relatively minor due to miniscule usage”. All it takes is one natural disaster, successful eco-terrorist attack, major industrial accident, or Congressional act (easily justified to the public under environmental and/or “F the rich a-holes” grounds), and 100LL which “isn’t going away” will go away. It may be 20 years from now, it may be next year. But it WILL happen. Perhaps most on here don’t care though, betting that they’ll be dead and gone by then, or have surrendered their wings to medical conditions or old age. Today’s student pilots won’t care; they’ll have moved on to turbines at the airlines. The fire-breathing big engines and their airframes will be run out and retired because overhaul and maintenance got too high.
In typical aviation fashion, we (pilots, industry, regulators) chose to make our stand on the hill of “100% drop-in replacement or nothing”, and now that it’s pretty definite that there’s no drop-in replacement, we’ll wind up dying on that hill and getting the nothing.
IMHO you’d be an idiot today to design (or honestly, buy) a new airplane or engine that required 100LL and wasn’t compatible out the box with as many of the candidate unleaded fuels as possible. Really, I’d say you’d be an idiot to design, buy, or build a new airplane or engine that couldn’t run on premium gas from the corner gas station, ethanol and all (even if you didn’t technically certify for that). If you really need that performance, get a turbine or a diesel.
I built my RV with mogas in mind, and plan to start testing with it soon, now that my break-in period is over.
It would appear that 100LL will be around and utilized for a long time to come.
I still wouldn’t bet much on that. What do you suppose the chances are of Innospec rebuilding their factory if something were to happen to it (intentionally or otherwise)?
The FAA is not going to move on this, and you can see the debacle between ATSM,Non ATSM testing, Braily, and the competitors, the FBO’s refusing to install more tanks of differing fuels, the Insurance take on it all, the non-compatibility of the various fuels, the supposed wear on fiberglass/composite components, Cirrus Aircraft banning Baily GAMI FUEL and the improbability of Innospec stopping their production of TEL which I have been listening to since 100LL was introduced and I first put it in my plane.
How many years ago was that?
100LL will be around and utilized for many a year to come!
What do you mean by this statement? “Something was to happen to the Innospec factory–intentional or otherwise?”
Are you talking about malicious damage or vandalism?
That would be ridiculous and improbable.
Acts of god, industrial accident, terrorism, hybrid warfare, drone attack? Not exactly ridiculous or improbable given the plant’s location.
UNDER Risk Management assessments given that EXACT locale and complex structure the probability of any of the maladies that you have outlined is 2.8%
Chemical Plant Contractor Management and REACH Compliance
Contractor management in chemical plants carries particular risk because contractors frequently undertake the highest-hazard activities: plant maintenance, turnarounds and shutdowns (where process equipment is opened and energy sources are isolated), and construction of new process units alongside live operations. The combination of high consequence process environment, unfamiliar site conditions, and the isolation and opening of hazardous systems creates contractor fatality risk that is disproportionate to contractor work-hour share.
REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) is the EU regulation governing chemical substances — UK REACH applies domestically post-Brexit. Chemical manufacturers have specific obligations as substance manufacturers under REACH: registering substances with ECHA (European Chemicals Agency), producing safety data sheets, communicating substance hazard information down the supply chain, and restricting or seeking authorization for substances of very high concern (SVHCs).
The intersection of REACH and occupational safety is particularly important: REACH registration data — particularly Section 8 of the chemical safety report (worker exposure scenarios) — provides the hazard and exposure information required for COSHH assessment. Many chemical manufacturers find systematic REACH compliance generates the occupational exposure data that simultaneously satisfies COSHH requirements, reducing duplicated assessment effort across the two regulatory regimes.
It would appear that 100LL will be around and utilized for a long time to come.
What does a “2.8%” risk mean in this context? That out of 365 days in a year about 10 of them would see an accident?
What maladies did you outline to generate this result?
In OEM and the Air Guard they do a Risk Management Evaluation on each and every factory, building, chemical plant, electrical distribution plant, natural gas distribution plant, electrical grid distribution network, structure, activity, mission, sortie, task, flight, etc., etc.
For instance, there will be a managed full gear ‘hike’ in the woods on a 92 F. degree day and there will be an eval on it for Risk Management. Depending on where the percentile statistic finally lands there will be cross reference to what will be labelled as acceptable, unacceptable, high risk, lower risk, medium risk, residual risk, reoccurring risk and that final figure is what is all encompassing for whatever was just evaluated.
In our figure of 2.8% that is interpreted to mean there will be an almost 3% chance out of 100% that there will be a reportable mishap at that plant in 365 days’ time. Under the EPA Risk Management Program (RMP) rule, “maladies” in this context refer to hazardous chemical substances that, if released in large quantities, could cause serious harm to people, property, or the environment. These are defined in 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart G and include both toxic and flammable substances listed in the List of Regulated Substances Manual.
We are one industrial accident away from no 100 LL being available. Innospec has said in the past that the TEL equipment is nearing end of life. G100UL is a drop-in replacement and certified by the FAA for all spark induced engines with an STC. We should be pushing to get GL100UL into the pipeline ASAP.
Why do we have to PAY for an STC so that we can BUY their fuel?
Probably in part because EAGLE/PAFI reportedly would not accept previous testing that GAMI already performed on their fuel, so the STC route was the only route available to them. At least they could recover some of their development costs that way.
Hypothetically, if EAGLE/PAFI were to accept G100UL as the 100LL drop-in replacement, the STC wouldn’t be needed. I presume the same would be the case if they accept the other candidate fuels.
Great answer, thanks!
GAMI had two choices, go the STC route or the PAFI route. Since they began developing G100UL years before PAFI even existed, it only made financial sense to go the STC route. That way they didn’t have to throw away years of $$$ put into R&D and also lose their intellectual property by starting at the beginning again. Not to mention all the red tape by having to get all of industry involved and the politics that goes along with that.
As far as why the need for an STC itself? Well that’s just simple FAA regulations as well as liability concerns. G100UL is not an approved fuel type on any TCDS, so an STC is required. And given there are some very minor and miniscule performance characteristics that change when switching to G100UL, the STC places the operational liability onto the aircraft owner/operator for using an alternative fuel.
Btw, if having to by the STC isn’t bad enough, you will need to buy multiple STCs – one for the airframe and one for each engine. And for a final slap in the face, neither Lycoming nor Continental has chosen to accept (yet) 100UL for use in their engines.
G100UL makes great paint stripper, seal sweller so valve shafts seize, bladder solvent, no thanks. 90 octane no ethanol mogas user, looking forward to the other developing 100LL replacements.
We would like to see the proof rather than stuff posted on the interwebs by people who have no engineering knowledge or training.
So George Braly caved on the ASTM requirement and started that process, AND Innospec comes out and says they don’t have a firm shutdown date – the calendar date for phase-in just became very flexible – perhaps optional.
I’m glad to see GAMI pursuing the ASTM process. I’m also glad that Swift and Lyondell are doing that as well and coming out with their own Unleaded high octane fuels. The assurance from Innospec to support 100LL is to say the least, a relief given the time it has taken to develop unleaded high octane alternatives. I say let the market place, engine longevity and reliability, and compatibility with fuel systems and aircraft airframes determine which unleaded fuel product is better in the long run.
This is ridiculous!
The stuff is shipped in an ancient ship which could fail inspection unexpectedly. No-one is going to commit another ship to a toxic product.
The only reason we don’t have unleaded hundred right now is behind the scenes lobbying by the big fuel companies who want to continue selling their most profitable petroleum product.
This is compounded by ignorance of lead effects by too many pilots and mechanics.
GAMI has passed all the tests; it is approved; prove otherwise or put it in the tanks!
Lead is bad for people and engines.
Get this done;
Now!
Yes, the margin is higher to the manufacturer than auto fuel, but it is still a boutique petroleum product and contributes an exceptionally small percentage to the overall bottom line. If the UL process were so easy, it would be done by now and all of the eco-warriors could move onto the next crises. This is not a process where one “hopes they get it right.” Plane engines quitting in mid-flight would ruin everyone’s day. I’m content to wait until the process has been refined (pun intended) to the point where engineers, manufacturers, (airframe and engine) and the government all agree that no harm will occur through use of the UL fuel.
That’s never going to happen. The only way you’re going to get them single unleaded fuel is if the FAA gets off its ass and me and dates it.
I wonder how much toxic pollutants have been dumped into the air literally covering all of the continent of North America at some point for days, weeks and months versus the release of lead from aviation fuel. Just thinking.
…from Canadian forest fires…
That thump you heard was the sound of an EAGLE face planting its last landing. The loud bang was the regulatory shotgun putting it out of its misery. I would love to have been a fly on the wall for the discussions that got them to this announcement.
Anyway, someone owes for all the time we spent suffering through those miserable ^%$#ing fuel updates at AirVenture.