As I said, you make some good points, but;
All of the fuel sold is not just 87. Look at this; http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_a.htm
You will see that the demand for almost ALL fuels has declined over the years, not just 100LL. (Except for diesel fuel, which actually increased.) It does show how small an industry avaiton fuel is, but as has been said, anything is small in comparison to the production of 87 Unleaded. Midgrade and Premium are also small in comparison (albeit not as small), but can be found at almost any filling station. 100LL is also, acording to you, made by one out of 15 refineries.
Your next statment is a bit of a conundrum. You suggest that we forget all these "museum airplanes" (I.E. all planes with engines O-360 size of larger.), then say that AOPA is looking for a fuel that will keep the 25% that burns 70% of avgas. The 25% are not LSA's, they are the "museum planes" you mentioned earlier. What a DC-4 needs and what a brand-new C-206 need are the same thing. Also, in the locals listed, the WW2 prop planes are NOT musem planes, they are the planes that are flown all day, every day, until they wear out, hauling cargo and supplies where mordern planes can not go. (And I'm pretty sure a LSA can't haul 2,500 gallons of fuel 400 miles, land on a 3,300' rough gravel strip and fly back.) The LSA's are great, and I support them, but they are not the hardworking WW2 cargo planes, nor the hardworking big engine Cessna's and Piper's ferrying people about. They are planes for having fun in, going out and flying about, and I love that, but a $130,000 Cessna "Skycatcher" can't do the work that a beat-up old $80,000 C-180 can, much less a $150,000 DC-3. They are leisure planes, and are designed as so, not as cargo haulers.
I know the anti-knock vs. octane thing, and the ethanol law, I simply did not know what the abbriviations stood for, nor the exact bill pertaining to the ethanol law. It is interesting/irritating that it is not actually required. (I would have normally put two and two together, late night and lots of typing.)
That was my point, if 100LL is no longer available they will be forced to use 91 mogas or 94UL if they can't get it without ethanol.
This is exactly our point, the banning of 100LL before even a suitible replacment would all but kill commercial GA. (If a WW2 DC-6 flys 1200 hours a year working for hire, I call it a commercial plane.) There is no replacment that I know of that has been tested to work at this point.
You confound me once again here, you say that 94UL should be aproved this year. If there is mogas, there will be no demand, if it becomes unavailable due to ethanol, there will be demand and they will begin the production of 94UL. Just how soon do you think the supply of no-ethanol gas will stop? I heard that the Taylorcraft guys sometimes buy a few hundred gallons at a time direct from the refinerey, and that the plant does not put the ethanol in, at least it is the last thing before it goes on the truck.
I don't at all mean to sound anti-LSA, I myself am trying to get my licence in a couple years (money) and my plane is most likely going to be a Taylorcraft BC-12D. A LSA, and a plane made in the 1940's. Just because it's an old plane does not mean it is not a working plane. If the only option was a $130,000 brand-new one, or high rental on a C-172 or similar for every flight hour, my God, it'd be impossible!
Time to get off again,