Tom_Waarne
Finally, the first ripple in the pond!
Finally, the first ripple in the pond!
Next press release will be from the opposition moving the goalposts defining “commercially available” yet again.
As a patent lawyer pointed out, the EAGLE deadline of 2030 is conveniently close to GAMI’s patent expiration of 2031. After that, they can proudly claim a “solution!” without having to pay GAMI.
1 reply
This is an important point. Fuel in that region is roughly $7/gallon. Naysayers will be quick to point out that since fuel at their local municipal airport is only $4/gallon that means G100UL is too expensive and will “kill general aviation!”
This is about as pointless as comparing the price of a single-family home in Boston, MA versus Boston, AR.
1 reply
Oh boy… I am so excited. How many airports are there in the US? What a joke.
What are your guess on the final price?
Don’t feel too bad . In the beautiful Hamptons we have a sole provider, Modern Aviation.
We locals get to pay $9.09 with minimal discount for tenants.
Rarely see any sold. KFOK. We hop across to Conn and pay $6 .
I just hope it will make its way over to the Northeast in the near future. Preferably before 2030.
I believe a lot of attorney’s are salivating, waiting for the first aircraft accident. You know it will be because of the “new fuel”.
Probably sell more G1000 if GAMI lowered roadblocks they do have control over. Sell the STC for the price of postage. Or will no one care about the STC?
This will be interesting to watch. Patents have a defined lifetime, unlike STC’s that seem to have no set expiration date. Even if the formula goes into the public domain, what does the FAA do about the STC? As I understand it, they don’t like to issue copycat STCs. We may have white label 100UL, but still may be paying GAMI for the STC.
I guess it’s axiomatic that if you want a project to fail to meet its goals, give the job to a committee. EAGLE has demonstrated that is still a working predictor. GAMI was able to ignore the niceties and just get the job done. That’s what market disrupters do.
I think it’s great that GAMI could find a carrier that would accept the risk to transport this fuel through 5 states. One tank full to one airport isn’t statistically significant. As litigious as we’ve become someone who feels themselves injured will sue the trucker, GAMI, Santa Clara County and the cafe the trucker stopped at for lunch. We’ll be lucky to see those law suits settled by 2030.
The FAA and ASTM need to step up. Make a couple of people in the agencies (they can later blame) responsible for approving a new standard for unleaded fuels and blessing it for use in flying machines. Then turn it loose so it can be made by many (as many as are interested) producers that can get the price down to something approaching reasonable.
Missing the good old days when the military created the “Standards” and everyone just shrugged and rubber stamped them.
2 replies
This is great. Everything has a “first one.” I’ll be flying to RHV sometime soon to be a buyer. Thank you George and team.
Me. Thanks for the tip!
The Mogas STC seems to sell ok, and the G100UL STC is about the same cost.
Swift’s UL94 currently arrives in San Jose by rail car with capacity of 27,000 gallons, and is cheaper to refine and still sells for $7.59/gallon (Self Serve) and $7.89/gallon from the county’s truck… Coming by tanker truck from Louisiana will add a little more than $1/gallon to a higher refinery cost, and fuel will likely cost more than $8.50/gallon… I suspect some 100 octane users will continue to fly 30 miles to get 100LL for $5.40/gallon, but we shall see… I agree this is hopeful step for GAMI, but initial reception may not be as enthusiastic as some have hoped for… I suspect flight schools using Swift UL94 will want to continue with that, as all of their fleets are compatible with it.
Reid Hillview airfield (KRHV) is an anomaly in the California market.
By claiming they did not receive FAA Grant Assurances for many years, Santa Clara County was able to eliminate 100LL at KRHV and move to unleaded avgas nearly 3 years ago.
However, over 200 airfields in California now receive FAA Grant Assurances and therefore must comply with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 in managing their transition to unleaded avgas.
The law is clear. The lack of an industry consensus fuel specification for G100UL continues to be an impediment to its commercial availability in the marketplace.
According to the Eagle website, an independent fuel specification is supported if the Fuel Developer follows the STC path.
https://flyeagle.org/fuel-developers/
The reauthorization act only mentions ASTM once, as an example of a standard that should apply to third party suppliers, not THE standard, and not specifically for fuel suppliers. So I’m not sure what law is clear to you.
Please be honest in that it’s really GAMA that is standing in the way of adoption of G100UL, demanding an ASTM spec for G100UL when it was never required to begin with. The FAA has approved G100UL with an STC, and it’s independent specification. You are just spreading the FUD in your role as Swift CEO. I wish you would focus on your own fuel instead so that we get the lead out of our avgas. There is room for more than once solution.
The law says it needs to meet “either an industry consensus standard or other standard” … “as determined appropriate by the Administrator.”
Excellent.
I hope George makes good money before patent expires, he’s worked at testing, formulation, and acceptance of G100UL for a very long time.
How would avgas get to a small airport other than by truck?
Railways don’t go everywhere.
Large YVR has been getting at least some of its aviation fuel by truck from a refinery to the south in WA state, there was an attempt to build a pipeline from a southern arm of the Fraser River to the airport and barge to the southern end of the pipeline. I don’t know if that was approved, there was opposition.
Some aviation fuel comes by barge to the marine terminal of the refinery in Burnaby BC then is trucked to the airport.
Most Avgas moves long distances by pipeline or rail car, and then by truck from distribution sites near major cities to local airports. Traveling from Louisiana to California by truck is much more expensive than by rail. Understand that all the 100LL in western US comes from Richmond CA Chevron refinery, so airports in Oregon, Washington and Nevada get fuel by rail and then truck. Swift’s refinery in Indiana ships by rail to a terminal in San Jose, and then is re-loaded into smaller trucks for delivery to the 6 airports in the area that sell UL94. When we began bringing UL94 to San Jose by truck in 2021 (including special California-approved tractors) it was a lot more expensive thna the 27K gallon rail car shipments in use today.
1 reply
I’m saying it varies.
What is the significance of Louisiana.
(GAMI is in OK, I don’t know where they have their fuel made.)
1 reply
‘risk’?
Fuel is trucked around the country, especially the ‘last mile’ as few airports have rail service.
Railway transport is not zero risk. And being used for crude oil to the midwet coast of North America.
Vitol Aviation company is big, could transport fuel by ship to California.