Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet

455 Bravo Uniform said:
Double like. It’s not a mix of proprietary chemicals. It’s a patented blend of existing known and available chemicals that they found to meet the performance requirements. I’m surprised it took so long on the science and engineering end, but not surprised from the administrative end (patents, approvals, politics, etc.).

What’s all the fuss about ASTM? I haven’t really looked into that aspect, so I am unintelligent at the moment.
Click to expand...
The issue is, many Type Certificates specify Aviation Gasoline or a fuel that meets ASTM D910.

So if it is meets an ASTM Aviation Gasoline Spec, you can just use it. Without that, you need some other approval, such as the STC required for G100UL.

The problem with the other UL fuels is trying to meet D910 and have the detonation resistance required. Plus needing to be fully compatible with 100LL, including in various mixtures.
 
The crux of the problem now, with the new FAA reauthorization bill mandating 100LL until an ASTM replacement is available, is that there may be no ASTM-compliant 100UL fuel possible. That was what GAMI finally realized when they formulated their fuel. Instead of trying to force the square peg in the round hole, GAMI came at the solution another way. So now we have a drop-in fuel chemistry available, but for paperwork barriers. Meanwhile, when will the clock run out on bulk TEL manufacture?
 
chemgeek said:
The crux of the problem now, with the new FAA reauthorization bill mandating 100LL until an ASTM replacement is available, is that there may be no ASTM-compliant 100UL fuel possible. That was what GAMI finally realized when they formulated their fuel. Instead of trying to force the square peg in the round hole, GAMI came at the solution another way. So now we have a drop-in fuel chemistry available, but for paperwork barriers. Meanwhile, when will the clock run out on bulk TEL manufacture?
Click to expand...

1690915829740.png

I'd say you whacked the nail on the head.

I wonder, if we defunded EAGLE so there wasn't a free rice bowl anymore, whether we'd see more movement on G100UL. Right now, the fuel companies have no business reason to begin producing it, not while the USG is giving them science project money. We're going to reach 2030 in the same condition as 2020 and 2010 and 2000 and....
 
Half Fast said:
View attachment 119532

I'd say you whacked the nail on the head.

I wonder, if we defunded EAGLE so there wasn't a free rice bowl anymore, whether we'd see more movement on G100UL. Right now, the fuel companies have no business reason to begin producing it, not while the USG is giving them science project money.
Click to expand...
What prevents some kind of movement now? It’s been approved for a year and GAMI have done nothing but whine since.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
What prevents some kind of movement now? It’s been approved for a year and GAMI have done nothing but whine since.
Click to expand...


EAGLE money and protective politics.

Why would a fuel company begin paying license fees to GAMI and producing G100UL while they can still sell 100LL and while the USG is giving them money to play "watch it fizz" in the chemistry lab until 2030?
 
yabut, the real question is what private party is/are invested in the stonewalling of 100UL avgas. IOW, who lobbied for EAGLE?
 
hindsight2020 said:
yabut, the real question is what private party is/are invested in the stonewalling of 100UL avgas. IOW, who lobbied for EAGLE?
Click to expand...

Everyone else who is left out of the money by the 100UL. The more I think about it, the more impossible the STC route is for broad market success, thus full failure. Sorry, I’m a pessimist on this one, mainly for market economics and capitalistic reasons.
 
Last edited:
Pinecone said:
The issue is, many Type Certificates specify Aviation Gasoline or a fuel that meets ASTM D910.

So if it is meets an ASTM Aviation Gasoline Spec, you can just use it. Without that, you need some other approval, such as the STC required for G100UL.

The problem with the other UL fuels is trying to meet D910 and have the detonation resistance required. Plus needing to be fully compatible with 100LL, including in various mixtures.
Click to expand...
I dug into this and maybe you can expand? ASTM D910 is the spec for leaded avgas. Every allowable octane must include lead. Conversely, no unleaded gas can meet the spec. Table 1. True?

Seems like the GAMI fix is to get ASTM to push a new rev of D910 that includes their fuel and methods since they have proven it is aviation compatible across all aviation piston engines. Yes, sometimes changing the standard is the easy route. Last revised in 2021 from what I can see.
 
masloki said:
I dug into this and maybe you can expand? ASTM D910 is the spec for leaded avgas. Every allowable octane must include lead. Conversely, no unleaded gas can meet the spec. Table 1. True?

Seems like the GAMI fix is to get ASTM to push a new rev of D910 that includes their fuel and methods since they have proven it is aviation compatible across all aviation piston engines. Yes, sometimes changing the standard is the easy route. Last revised in 2021 from what I can see.
Click to expand...
As I understand it GAMI didn’t like the ASTM process as the ASTM people started “leaking” proprietary information to other parties. Not that it surprised me.
 
chemgeek said:
The crux of the problem now, with the new FAA reauthorization bill mandating 100LL until an ASTM replacement is available, is that there may be no ASTM-compliant 100UL fuel possible. That was what GAMI finally realized when they formulated their fuel. Instead of trying to force the square peg in the round hole, GAMI came at the solution another way. So now we have a drop-in fuel chemistry available, but for paperwork barriers. Meanwhile, when will the clock run out on bulk TEL manufacture?
Click to expand...
Have you read the actual language in the bill?

It was posted on BT and it does not say ASTM replacement. It says Aviation Fuel, but the text also defines Aviation Fuel to be any fuel that pays the avgas taxes.

It looks more like it requires airport to continue to have fuel available to cover all aircraft that were covered in 2018 at that same airport.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
What prevents some kind of movement now? It’s been approved for a year and GAMI have done nothing but whine since.
Click to expand...
Very few airports are going to be able to afford the addition of a second fuel farm to offer G100UL if federal law requires them to maintain 100LL availability until an ASTM-compliant fuel is available. So there is virtually no path to wider adoption and volume pricing. So we have a viable solution ready to go, but for clinging to an ASTM standard that may not be necessary and is very possibly unattainable. So the future supply of 100 octane avgas remains under the dual threat of environmental safety and manufacturing liability/viability concerns.
 
Pinecone said:
Have you read the actual language in the bill?

It was posted on BT and it does not say ASTM replacement. It says Aviation Fuel, but the text also defines Aviation Fuel to be any fuel that pays the avgas taxes.

It looks more like it requires airport to continue to have fuel available to cover all aircraft that were covered in 2018 at that same airport.
Click to expand...
The amended legislation requires a "widely available" "industry consensus standard" unleaded fuel to allow replacement of 100LL, which is de facto currently an ASTM requirement. Legislators confirm that the intent is that fuels requiring an STC would not qualify. So the legislation, which (laudably) prevents airports from withholding 100LL fuel without a suitable replacement, the "suitable replacement" requirement stifles innovation and immediate progress.
 
chemgeek said:
Very few airports are going to be able to afford the addition of a second fuel farm to offer G100UL if federal law requires them to maintain 100LL availability until an ASTM-compliant fuel is available. So there is virtually no path to wider adoption and volume pricing. So we have a viable solution ready to go, but for clinging to an ASTM standard that may not be necessary and is very possibly unattainable. So the future supply of 100 octane avgas remains under the dual threat of environmental safety and manufacturing liability/viability concerns.
Click to expand...
"Very few" isn't "none." Swift 94UL is at 30-some airports today. If they can do it, why can't GAMI?
 
I have the swift STC for ul 94 ,but it’s very difficult to find in the northeast and Florida. I use it when it’s available.
 
chemgeek said:
The amended legislation requires a "widely available" "industry consensus standard" unleaded fuel to allow replacement of 100LL, which is de facto currently an ASTM requirement. Legislators confirm that the intent is that fuels requiring an STC would not qualify. So the legislation, which (laudably) prevents airports from withholding 100LL fuel without a suitable replacement, the "suitable replacement" requirement stifles innovation and immediate progress.
Click to expand...
Exact words please

"
SEC. 431. CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF AVIATION GASOLINE.
(a) In General.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall ensure that any of such varieties of aviation gasoline as may be necessary to fuel any model of piston-engine aircraft remain available for purchase at each airport listed on the national plan of integrated airport systems (as described in section 47103 of title 49, United States Code) at which aviation gasoline was available for purchase as of October 5, 2018.

(b) Removal Of Availability.—The Administrator shall consider a prohibition or restriction on the sale of such varieties of aviation gasoline to violate assurance 22 (or any successor assurance related to economic nondiscrimination) of grant assurances associated with the airport improvement program under subchapter I of chapter 471 and chapter 475 of title 49, United States Code.

(c) Aviation Gasoline Defined.—In this section, the term “aviation gasoline” means a gasoline on which a tax is imposed under section 4081(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(d) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section may be construed to—

(1) affect any airport sponsor found to be out of compliance with the grant assurance described in subsection (b) before the date of enactment of this Act;

(2) affect any investigation of an airport sponsor initiated by the Administrator under parts 13 or 16 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, relating to the availability of aviation gasoline; or

(3) require any particular action by the Administrator if the Administrator determines through such investigation that such airport sponsor has violated a grant assurance

I see this as trying to avoid the KRHV situation where they removed 100LL. It basically says that if an airport removes a fuel, they could be in violation of the grant assurances. This seems like a good idea to me for now given no deployed alternative.

Section 410 of the bill seems to specifically allow for grant money to cover the installation of unleaded fuel systems, so the bill is trying to promote unleaded fuel:"

SEC. 410. FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE.
Section 47110 of title 49, United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

“(k) Fuel Infrastructure.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may decide that covered costs are allowable for an airport development project at a primary or nonprimary airport where such costs are paid for with funds apportioned to the sponsor of such airport under section 47114 or provided pursuant to section 47115.

“(2) PRIORITIZATION.—If the Secretary makes grants from the discretionary fund under section 47115 for covered costs, the Secretary shall prioritize providing such grants to general aviation airports.

“(3) COVERED COSTS DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘covered costs’—

“(A) means construction costs related to an airport-owned—

“(i) aeronautical fueling system for unleaded fuel; and

“(ii) fueling systems for type certificated hydrogen-powered aircraft; and

“(B) may include capital costs for fuel farms and other equipment and infrastructure used for the delivery and storage of fuel.”.
 
Pinecone said:
Exact words please

"
SEC. 431. CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF AVIATION GASOLINE.
(a) In General.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall ensure that any of such varieties of aviation gasoline as may be necessary to fuel any model of piston-engine aircraft remain available for purchase at each airport listed on the national plan of integrated airport systems (as described in section 47103 of title 49, United States Code) at which aviation gasoline was available for purchase as of October 5, 2018.
Click to expand...
I'm not finding the term "industry consensus" in your text above (happy if it's not there). Link to complete source, please. (or maybe I missed it earlier in this thread)
 
chemgeek said:
Very few airports are going to be able to afford the addition of a second fuel farm to offer G100UL if federal law requires them to maintain 100LL availability...
Click to expand...
If /when we see G100UL, it'll likely be at smaller airports that aren't bound by grant obligations. Those airports will also tend to have a higher percentage of older engines that don't like 100LL.

The larger airports may still have the old unused 80/87 tanks in place.
 
very informative video on the history of this kerfuffle. If I understood his theory of the case correctly, he argues the stonewalling source is oil companies hiding behind ASTM to not upset the status quo of their 100LL sales. Did I get the gist of his accusation right?
 
hindsight2020 said:
very informative video on the history of this kerfuffle. If I understood his theory of the case correctly, he argues the stonewalling source is oil companies hiding behind ASTM to not upset the status quo of their 100LL sales. Did I get the gist of his accusation right?
Click to expand...
Which makes no sense considering how little 100LL makes up of total sales.
 
EdFred said:
Which makes no sense considering how little 100LL makes up of total sales.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of contradictory talk. On one hand, it’s too small of a market to worry about. On the other, the margin is so fat that the oil companies will do anything to protect it.

No one wants to refine or distribute UL because the market isn’t worth the effort.

OR, they don’t want anyone else to sell it because the profits on 100LL are so huge.

It all depends on which point the speaker wants to make.
 
What about the CA airports where 100LL is banned. Are any of them stocking or going to stock 100UL?

I'd pay an extra buck a gallon. All 4 of my exhaust valves have stuck on my O-200 in 400 hous since new.

I run an oil filter so I would be going to 100 hours between oil changes.
 
M2C. 100LL is a cash cow - although a small one. All of the infrastructure and development costs were spent a long time ago. No growth potential now, but still brings in a little profit.

If you were an oil company, you’d want to just keep things the way they are and make no changes that would cost capital expenses.

And to boot the government will give you money to “study” the problem, which doesn’t happen if there isn’t a problem.
 
Let's REALLY stir things up.
I do science for a living, successfully, and I have read all the reports and even checked the math and other data.
The is NO lead pollution from 100LL piston powered aircraft. The studies done by the EPA and the FAA both indicate that airborne lead pollution in and around airports is BELOW the acceptable national level. To quote from the report: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100YG46.pdf
"For the vast majority of airports, these small areas with lead concentrations
potentially above the air standard are within the fence line of the airport and not accessible to
the public, in all but a few instances. Lead levels dissipate quickly with distance from piston-
engine aircraft exhaust. Thus, within 50 meters of the high concentration area, lead levels were
uniformly below the lead air standard."
Once lead is in the ground, at these low levels, it's no longer a problem. Not anywhere near the levels found in mining debris and lead smelting plants, which NO ONE ever talks about.
So, we are spending a crap ton of tax payer money, chasing a problem that doesn't exist, so someone can create a product that we don't need, but will probably, according to industy estimates, will cost us 2 or 3 dollars a gallon more than 100LL.
If you want to argue, show me facts, no some egg sucking politicians, or chest beating climate change whiners opinion. :cool:

Can you tell I had to cancel today's flight due to too much predicted vertical development?
 
I covered the EAGLE forum at Oshkosh this year. I was just there to take photos, but as a pilot I was also interested. It was a good discussion with the FAA, EAA, GAMA, all four possible fuel manufacturers, and more.

Here is what I understood, from my perspective of course. I was working for EAA, but only as a photographer, so this is only my personal view.

Here are the four companies/teams working on a solution:
Afton Chemical-Phillips 66 - PAFI process
VP Racing - PAFI process
Swift - STC ($100 one-time)
GAMI - STC (Price will be based on engines and horsepower, similar to the pricing for other fuel STCs.)

All four of the companies above made speeches. I thought that George Braly of GAMI wasn't very professional and sounded like a conspiracy theorist, stating multiple times that any bad information out there was made up by his competitors.

There will only be one of these manufacturers approved as a 100LL replacement. None of them want part of the business. The sales of 100LL are very small compared to all fuel sales in the US, so nobody wants a fraction of the sales. They are not working together and none of their fuels are compatible with the others. They are all compatible with 100LL. You will not have to worry about mixing the approved fuel with 100LL at any ratio.

Lirio Liu, Executive Director of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Aircraft Certification Service, said the FAA will insist all airports with 100LL now will continue to sell it until a replacement is in place. Of course this is only airports that have accepted federal funding. She specifically mentioned California.

They expect it to cost about the same as 100LL
They didn't have an answer on what color the new fuel will be and what color it will be when mixed with 100LL.
It will have a requirement to sit in aircraft for long periods of time, like 100LL.

2030 is the hard deadline, but the EPA told the FAA they would give them 7 years and let the FAA tell them when to start. The FAA chose 2023 because they feel they're ahead of schedule.
 
Shepherd said:
Let's REALLY stir things up.
I do science for a living, successfully, and I have read all the reports and even checked the math and other data.
The is NO lead pollution from 100LL piston powered aircraft. The studies done by the EPA and the FAA both indicate that airborne lead pollution in and around airports is BELOW the acceptable national level. To quote from the report: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100YG46.pdf
"For the vast majority of airports, these small areas with lead concentrations
potentially above the air standard are within the fence line of the airport and not accessible to
the public, in all but a few instances. Lead levels dissipate quickly with distance from piston-
engine aircraft exhaust. Thus, within 50 meters of the high concentration area, lead levels were
uniformly below the lead air standard."
Once lead is in the ground, at these low levels, it's no longer a problem. Not anywhere near the levels found in mining debris and lead smelting plants, which NO ONE ever talks about.
So, we are spending a crap ton of tax payer money, chasing a problem that doesn't exist, so someone can create a product that we don't need, but will probably, according to industy estimates, will cost us 2 or 3 dollars a gallon more than 100LL.
If you want to argue, show me facts, no some egg sucking politicians, or chest beating climate change whiners opinion. :cool:

Can you tell I had to cancel today's flight due to too much predicted vertical development?
Click to expand...

Yeah, weather probably has an effect on the number and loudness of POA posts :)

I am considering some PhD level work in this area in the next 1-5 years, depending on funding and interest. Some studies have been done on lead distribution and bioavailability. Some of the data defies logic…or so it seems. I think weather and soil type have some role. As well, the analysis of total vs soluble lead is different, since we need to consider it’s actually mostly lead bromide coming out of exhausts. Prevailing winds need to go into the statistics, as well as particle size and settling velocity (doubtful that PbBr molecule is just going to land on the airport except for a calm foggy morning).

Want a good example of the non-airport distribution of an exhaust plume? Sure, the physics are different. Ever seen a B52s exhaust on departure? Where do those particles settle past the end of the runway? Probably not within the airport fenceline.

There are so many variables that are not considered in existing studies; don’t get me wrong, I’m not critical, I’m just saying it’s complicated and those complications are “study limitations” that need to be the disclaimer when conclusions are shared.

One of my interests is indoor air dusts. But we have to know which direction and how far to look first, but exponential or geometric dilution probably plays a big role.
 
Lowflynjack said:
There will only be one of these manufacturers approved as a 100LL replacement. None of them want part of the business. The sales of 100LL are very small compared to all fuel sales in the US, so nobody wants a fraction of the sales. They are not working together and none of their fuels are compatible with the others. They are all compatible with 100LL. You will not have to worry about mixing the approved fuel with 100LL at any ratio.
Click to expand...

That is the key, the market demands only one. The FAA or someone will need to determine which one, so that they can then ramp up production and phase out or replace 100LL production and distribution.

I don't think the STC model is viable, especially when the aircraft owners are on the hook for it. That is going to lead to a mixed fleet of Swift or GAMI users mixed with 100LL holdouts. That is not the solution we need.
 
Sometimes the market place sets the standard (VHS vs Beta), and sometimes government needs to set the standards (How to rate Octane, thread pitch for a 1/4 inch bolt, etc.). Market is too small in this case - just have the government buy the GAMI formula and let the oil companies use it.

IMHO - I didn't see George speak to GAMI at EAA, but I think given all the work he's done and the FAA pulling the rug out from underneath him with EAGLE, I think we can give him some grace if he sounds like he thinks the politicians are not being on the up and up.
 
Last edited:
wayneda40 said:
Kudos to @Martin Pauly for capturing video of the George Braly (GAMI) session at OSH:
Click to expand...

Good stuff.

Lowflynjack said:
I covered the EAGLE forum at Oshkosh this year. I was just there to take photos, but as a pilot I was also interested. It was a good discussion with the FAA, EAA, GAMA, all four possible fuel manufacturers, and more.

Here is what I understood, from my perspective of course. I was working for EAA, but only as a photographer, so this is only my personal view.

Here are the four companies/teams working on a solution:
Afton Chemical-Phillips 66 - PAFI process
VP Racing - PAFI process
Swift - STC ($100 one-time)
GAMI - STC (Price will be based on engines and horsepower, similar to the pricing for other fuel STCs.)

All four of the companies above made speeches. I thought that George Braly of GAMI wasn't very professional and sounded like a conspiracy theorist, stating multiple times that any bad information out there was made up by his competitors.

There will only be one of these manufacturers approved as a 100LL replacement. None of them want part of the business. The sales of 100LL are very small compared to all fuel sales in the US, so nobody wants a fraction of the sales. They are not working together and none of their fuels are compatible with the others. They are all compatible with 100LL. You will not have to worry about mixing the approved fuel with 100LL at any ratio.

Lirio Liu, Executive Director of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Aircraft Certification Service, said the FAA will insist all airports with 100LL now will continue to sell it until a replacement is in place. Of course this is only airports that have accepted federal funding. She specifically mentioned California.

They expect it to cost about the same as 100LL
They didn't have an answer on what color the new fuel will be and what color it will be when mixed with 100LL.
It will have a requirement to sit in aircraft for long periods of time, like 100LL.

2030 is the hard deadline, but the EPA told the FAA they would give them 7 years and let the FAA tell them when to start. The FAA chose 2023 because they feel they're ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...

I tend to believe Braly, for professional reasons. I’ll leave it at that.
 
WDD said:
IMHO - I didn't see George speak to GAMI at EAA, but I think given all the work he's done and the FAA pulling the rug out from underneath him with EAGLE, I think we can give him some grace if he sounds like he thinks the politicians are not being on the up and up.
Click to expand...
I'll take the time to watch the full video, but this is not the forum I heard him speak at.

Where I feel he seems bitter is when he says things like, "It's not yet available and that's largely because of the pushback that's been ongoing from some of your favorite alphabet groups and from the fuel distributors that don't want their existing business model disturbed." Was he promised that if he developed a fuel it would be accepted as a replacement for 100LL? It seems like they're doing it correctly by letting multiple companies compete and come up with the best product for us. If they accept his fuel, according to what I heard, none of the other manufacturers' fuels would be compatible, so he would own the market. How would this be fair to the rest of them? They were all given the same amount of time and testing requirements.

Also, he's one who wants and STC based on horsepower, it's on their website. So you develop a fuel, we all have to use it unless we want to use MoGas, but you'll force us to buy your STC even though it's supposed to be an equal replacement with no mods to our planes.

This is the first time I heard him mention that it's heavier than 100LL... I'm curious how much heavier.

I'm not convinced he has the correct solution to the market. I'm also not convinced he doesn't! He's a very smart guy and a successful businessman, but he's up against some very large companies. We'll see what happens.
 
Last edited:
It’s possible, and appears more likely, he took the engineer track and solved the problem that engineering can fix. The world is littered with superior but dead products. Marketing, pricing, partnerships, support, training, customers, service providers, etc all factor into a product’s success. He got 700 people to buy his product in about 1 year out of a total addressable market of millions. There is a product problem.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I'll take the time to watch the full video, but this is not the forum I heard him speak at.

Where I feel he seems bitter is when he says things like, "It's not yet available and that's largely because of the pushback that's been ongoing from some of your favorite alphabet groups and from the fuel distributors that don't want their existing business model disturbed." Was he promised that if he developed a fuel it would be accepted as a replacement for 100LL? It seems like they're doing it correctly by letting multiple companies compete and come up with the best product for us. If they accept his fuel, according to what I heard, none of the other manufacturers' fuels would be compatible, so he would own the market. How would this be fair to the rest of them? They were all given the same amount of time and testing requirements.

Also, he's one who wants and STC based on horsepower, it's on their website. So you develop a fuel, we all have to use it unless we want to use MoGas, but you'll force us to buy your STC even though it's supposed to be an equal replacement with no mods to our planes.

This is the first time I heard him mention that it's heavier than 100LL... I'm curious how much heavier.

I'm not convinced he has the correct solution to the market. I'm also not convinced he doesn't! He's a very smart guy and a successful businessman, but he's up against some very large companies. We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Just because it was the first, doesn't mean its the best product either. I get he wants to recoup his development cost with the STCs, but I don't see a successful product being dependent on each individual aircraft having to purchase the "ability" to use it. The benefit to the eventual developer I'd think would be a long-term franchise fee per gallon. Even if it was $.01 per gallon, times 150 million gallons per year (based on what I could find on Google quickly), that is still $1.5 Million in revenue annually.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Where I feel he seems bitter is when he says things like, "It's not yet available and that's largely because of the pushback that's been ongoing from some of your favorite alphabet groups and from the fuel distributors that don't want their existing business model disturbed." Was he promised that if he developed a fuel it would be accepted as a replacement for 100LL?
Click to expand...
Yep. The Victim schtick is getting a bit old. Trashing the alphabet groups is pi**ing in the punch bowl. So far, I've gotten a lot more benefit from the groups than anyone has gotten from the GAMI STC.

Either sell the fuel or sell the recipe. No one cares how hard he worked on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top