X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmfepo203.cox.net ([68.230.241.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4981560 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:29:06 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.148; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110512142829.MSP22406.fed1rmfepo203.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:28:29 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.199.221.69]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id ieU71g00N1WSgfc03eUVMu; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:28:29 -0400 X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.4DCBEE8D.012B,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=6Gs6ih2qhyBJIJybVFJp2zJD/9EZIQHRgYEfUSF8mTo= c=1 sm=1 a=MzCxSdh3GCoA:10 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10 a=swDsztNognk9GHlyB/l+AQ==:17 a=EZHvcOeMAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=-OMJOJjeAAAA:8 a=OkJFG1BJAAAA:8 a=7U6vjC_uAAAA:8 a=k2gUunGxmPCpXrDJsfYA:9 a=prcWQVPCF4VuCoB6Od8A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=bSlBzdVYcfoA:10 a=AIyG_NLD4fUA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=-pNX7FafTChELeAf:21 a=FlszWyAzNdDMOA2E:21 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=pncWK7uVzCgFQWmXgqEA:9 a=tHsq5osTSbrsfUUBuSUA:7 a=EmaLKWKMddIdvTBu:21 a=oOIE0DtP9Azri4dS:21 a=SurQRpgpzQIPc8l1lnwA:9 a=1Vq_FK4TplAA:10 a=rVnDm9A_-c-k2ki-JAcA:9 a=swDsztNognk9GHlyB/l+AQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 07:29:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20391C5DEC3547C6B8323159AF469B97@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01CC1076.579946B0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6863 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: AcwQY+EGMCZKVx2fRqOZloV9VLG+vwAU+3wg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CC1076.579946B0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000C_01CC1076.579B90A0" ------=_NextPart_001_000C_01CC1076.579B90A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The pure-gas.org lists only 3 sources in all of California. I've = checked the local marinas around San Diego, and the response I get is "all fuel = in CA contains 10 % ethanol". =20 I've tested the fuel I've been buying at the local Chevron stations, and = it has 10% ethanol. I've been using that fuel almost exclusively for 5 = years in my Velocity (EZpoxy tanks), and am not aware of any problems sp far. It does cause me some anxiety, however; so I'm considering more extensive = use of 100LL. =20 Seems ironic - one good reason for using mogas is eliminating the lead pollution; which the regulators are trying to achieve; and then they regulate the requirement for ethanol in the fuel which makes that a bad choice as well. Typical bureaucratic lose-lose situation. =20 Al =20 -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:17 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California =20 You can find non-ethanol gas at boat docks that you can get to with your = car if you are willing to pay more for it. I get about 3 MPG improvement without ethanol so 12-13 % more would be breakeven. =20 Bill B =20 _____ =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Michael McMahon Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:25 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California =20 Wouldn't it be cool if you had a choice of ethanol-enhanced and = non-ethanol at gas stations? They could charge more for non-ethanol if you like, = but reserve at least one pump per station for non-ethanol gas. Would that = be difficult? Perhaps it could even be done on a station by station basis, just through personal contact, at least starting with the independent station owners. =20 mike =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:35 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California =20 Bill,=20 =20 You could be right on that. It surely won't hurt to put a little = pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative aviation fuel. Personally, I would be happy if they would make premium auto fuel ethanol free. =20 =20 On another note, with the time it takes for things to work their way = through the court system, it will be years before this gets resolved. The oil companies can afford to hire the best attorneys. =20 Mark S. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: This may not be all bad. It could cause Swift fuel and that stuff GAMI = is making to be approved. Swift fuel costs about $2/gal and will not go up = and down in price like Avgas. You could pay more for it since it is about = 8% more fuel efficient. =20 Bill B _____ =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:30 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] FW: 100LL in California =20 In case any of you missed this... who's next? =20 California Suit Targets 100LL Description: http://www.avweb.com/newspics/100ll.jpgA California environmental group has served notice it will sue more than 40 suppliers = of avgas in the state to force them to stop selling it. The Center for Environmental Healthhas given a legally-required 60 days of notice to all the major oil companies that = sell 100LL and the FBOs that pump it at 25 airports to stop. "The oil and aviation industries need to know Californians will not tolerate lead pollution that threatens our health and healthy environments," Michael Green, executive director of CEH, said in a statement. "We expect the industries to take immediate action to eliminate pollution that = endangers children and families who live, work and play near airports across the state." CEH cites a 2008 = EPA reports that show avgas is polluting the air and in some cases = groundwater around airports with piston traffic. CEH notes that Van Nuys Airport, one of the busiest GA airports in the = U.S., shows the highest level of lead pollution of more than 3,000 airports covered in the report. As we've reported and commented on extensively, = the EPA is now considering its options in dealing with 100LL in response to = a petition from Friends of the Earth. The CEH route is a little more = direct. It alleges violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Protesters recently staged a small rally outside Santa Monica Airport complaining about lead pollution. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_001_000C_01CC1076.579B90A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The pure-gas.org lists only 3 = sources in all of California.  I’ve checked the local marinas around = San Diego, and the response I get is “all fuel in CA contains 10 % = ethanol”.

 

I’ve tested the fuel = I’ve been buying at the local Chevron stations, and it has 10% ethanol. = I’ve been using that fuel almost exclusively for 5 years in my = Velocity (EZpoxy = tanks), and am not aware of any problems sp far.  It does cause me some anxiety, = however; so I’m considering more extensive use of 100LL.

 

Seems ironic – one good = reason for using mogas is eliminating the lead pollution; which the regulators are = trying to achieve; and then they regulate the requirement for ethanol in the = fuel which makes that a bad choice as well.  Typical bureaucratic = lose-lose situation.

 

Al

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, = 2011 9:17 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = FW: 100LL in California

 

You can find = non-ethanol gas at boat docks that you can get to with your car if you are willing = to pay more for it.  I get about 3 MPG improvement without ethanol so = 12-13 % more would be breakeven.

 

Bill = B

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Michael McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, = 2011 6:25 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = FW: 100LL in California

 

Wouldn’= ;t it be cool if you had a choice of ethanol-enhanced and non-ethanol at = gas stations?  They could charge more for non-ethanol if you like, but = reserve at least one pump per station for non-ethanol gas.  Would that be difficult?  Perhaps it could even be done on a station by station = basis, just through personal contact, at least starting with the independent = station owners.

 

mike<= /font>

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, = 2011 12:35 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = FW: 100LL in California

 

Bill,

 

You could be right on that.  It surely = won't hurt to put a little pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative = aviation fuel.  Personally, I would be happy if they would make premium auto = fuel ethanol free. 

 

On another note, with the time it takes for = things to work their way through the court system, it will be years before this = gets resolved.  The oil companies can afford to hire the best attorneys.

 

Mark S.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Bill = Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>= wrote:

This may not be = all bad.  It could cause Swift fuel and that stuff GAMI is making to be approved.  Swift fuel costs about $2/gal and will not go up and = down in price like Avgas.  You could pay more for it since it is about 8% = more fuel efficient.

 

Bill = B

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, = 2011 2:30 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] FW: = 100LL in California

 

In case any of you missed this...  who's = next?

 

California Suit Targets = 100LL

3D"Description:A California = environmental group has served notice it will sue more than 40 suppliers of avgas in = the state to force them to stop selling it. TheCenter for Environmental = Healthhas given a legally-required 60 days of notice to all the major oil = companies that sell 100LL and the FBOs that pump it at 25 airports to stop. = "The oil and aviation industries need to know Californians will not = tolerate lead pollution that threatens our health and healthy environments," = Michael Green, executive director of CEH, said in a statement. "We expect = the industries to take immediate action to eliminate pollution that = endangers children and families who live, work and play near airports across the state." CEH cites a 2008 EPA reports that show = avgas is polluting the air and in some cases groundwater around airports with = piston traffic.

CEH notes that Van Nuys Airport, one of the busiest GA airports in the U.S., = shows the highest level of lead pollution of more than 3,000 airports covered in = the report. As we've reported and commented on extensively, the EPA is now considering its options in dealing with 100LL in response to a = petition from Friends of the Earth. The CEH route is a little more direct. It = alleges violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement = Act. Protesters recently staged a small rally outside Santa Monica Airport complaining about lead pollution.

 

 

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_001_000C_01CC1076.579B90A0-- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CC1076.579946B0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhIAAgAHcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAB AAEAgAAAAAECAwICRAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CC1076.579946B0--