Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Local ethanol could power cars this year

 

Posted By Stabroek staff On January 20, 2013 @ 5:22 am In Local News | No Comments


The Agriculture Ministry and the Guyana Energy Agency (GEA) are in talks to use locally produced ethanol to woo investors and sharpen skills that would be put into developing the fledgling non-fossil fuel sector.

 

Guyana is set to start producing ethanol later this year. This development comes even as the Ansa McAl Group of Trinidad and Tobago, which signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with government in 2011 to conduct a feasibility study here, is continuing to assess its prospects.

 

“We are about to engage the GEA in discussions about blending [ethanol] with regular gas,” Agriculture Minister Dr Leslie Ramsammy told Stabroek News last week. He also said that the ethanol plant which will be installed at the Albion Sugar Estate in Berbice will be commissioned by May and is expected to produce 1,000 litres per day. The facility is being built by the United Kingdom-based Whitefox Technologies, together with its Brazilian partner Green in accordance with a bio-ethanol contract with the Guyana Government.

 

The minister explained that fuel from the East Berbice facility could be used to power vehicles, to demonstrate its efficacy, and guide policy related to reducing dependence on fossil fuel. Guyana’s fuel import bill is US$350 million.

Leslie Ramsammy

Leslie Ramsammy

 

The plant will be utilising molasses from the current sugarcane production, though plans for planting sugar cane specifically for this purpose have not been ruled out. “We’ll be using molasses [one of the residues of sugar production from cane]. It will be utilising molasses from the regular sugar production and at this stage we’re not cultivating additional sugarcane lands specifically for this plant possibly at a later phase,” he said.

 

The plant will be fabricated in two components: hydrous (containing water) and anhydrous (containing no water). Fabrication has started and the hydrous component is expected in the country soon and will be installed by month end. The anhydrous component will be installed by April, Ramsammy said.

 

“The main benefit for Guyana is that we’ll have a facility that we could demonstrate the production of fuel ethanol. Different feed stocks, like sugarcane juice, rice mash…can be demonstrated to interested investors,” the minister explained.

“It can be utilised to train persons, hence building human resource to support bio-energy production in Guyana. Fuel from this facility could be used to demonstrate utilisation in vehicles and guide policies as it relates to reducing our dependence on fossil fuel,” he added.

 

Ramsammy also said that the Ansa McAl Group has been allocated land in the Intermediate Savannahs and is currently doing feasibility studies for planting sugar cane in the assigned area.”

 

Last February, a team of Ansa McAl executives travelled to Guyana to shed light on claims that that the company had signed a secret deal with government to establish an ethanol plant. The visit came in the wake of controversy surrounding the disclosure of the MoU. News of the signing was only publicised here after an article was published in the Trinidad Guardian the week before the team’s visit.

The Guyana Government has denied that the bio-fuel MoU signed with the company was “secret” and said that the Trinidadian conglomerate was selected after its proposal was scrutinised by technical experts in the field of bio-energy.

 

Ansa McAl executives had said that the company should not be blamed for the late disclosure of the MoU to Guyanese, and attributed the delay in information being aired to government probably being preoccupied with the pending general elections along with its own focus on other projects.

 

The company had also expressed hope that given a favourable feasibility study in the Canje Basin focused on risks involved in areas of land, soil-type, land-preparation, sugarcane variety, transportation, choice of plant technology, potential revenues and labour costs, it would be able to pump some US$250 million to US$300 million into the ethanol plant project here.

 

While the feasibility study has been done, its findings are still to be made public. However, according to a source close to the project, the Canje Basin yielded disappointing results and as such government engaged in negotiations for an area in the Intermediate Savannahs. After surveying and consultations were done to ensure that the land sought did not infringe on laws governing protective areas, the firm was given the go-ahead.

 

The company is seeking to produce 40 million gallons of ethanol from two million tonnes of sugarcane, with 152 million litres (nameplate capacity) of ethanol annually.

 

Guyana was selected for the exploration of the investment because of its stable currency, its experience in the cultivation of sugarcane – the crop that would most probably be used to produce ethanol – and Ansa McAl’s business record here.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by TK:

Can someone pull up the AFC's Action Plan on this? 

 

Well TK:

 

The AFC talked about valued added in the sugar industry--ethanol production, etc---the AFC folks are great TALKERS but the PPP is now taking action.

 

 

 

TALKERS VS DOERS

 

Guyana is now progressing because the DOERS, particularly those in the business sector, are doing--they are taking action---keep talking TK, you and the AFC are good at it---the doers will take your good ideas and put them into action.hahahahaha

 

By the way TK, I just saw your response on the LTCM topic---that thread has become polluted---will discuss LTCM with you in a new thread--another time---will be looking at the Guy/TT T20s finals later today--not keen on discussing finance now.

 

Rev

 


 

FM
Originally Posted by Rev Al:
Originally Posted by TK:

Can someone pull up the AFC's Action Plan on this? 

 

Well TK:

 

The AFC talked about valued added in the sugar industry--ethanol production, etc---the AFC folks are great TALKERS but the PPP is now taking action.

 

 

 

TALKERS VS DOERS

 

Guyana is now progressing because the DOERS, particularly those in the business sector, are doing--they are taking action---keep talking TK, you and the AFC are good at it---the doers will take your good ideas and put them into action.hahahahaha

 

By the way TK, I just saw your response on the LTCM topic---that thread has become polluted---will discuss LTCM with you in a new thread--another time---will be looking at the Guy/TT T20s finals later today--not keen on discussing finance now.

 

Rev

 


 

 

AFC's got to do what it can do...it has 7 seats and not the government. It is not their mandate to implement these things...surely they would have if they had the Presidency. At least you guys are slowly copying the AFC's AP...coconut et al. Well done...

FM
Originally Posted by TK:
At least you guys are slowly copying the AFC's AP...coconut et al. Well done...


TK:

 

The Rev will always give jack his jacket---there were some sterling ideas in the AFC's plans, but as you are fully aware, ideas without action are worthless.

 

Anyway, your point is taken---the AFC is powerless.

 

 

RE: VALUE ADDED PRODUCTION!

 

This is what the Rev welcomes in Guyana---there are ample opportunities for value added production in the agri sector.

 

Rev

 

 

FM
Originally Posted by Rev Al:
Originally Posted by TK:

Can someone pull up the AFC's Action Plan on this? 

 

Well TK:

 

The AFC talked about valued added in the sugar industry--ethanol production, etc---the AFC folks are great TALKERS but the PPP is now taking action.

 

 

 

TALKERS VS DOERS

 

Guyana is now progressing because the DOERS, particularly those in the business sector, are doing--they are taking action---keep talking TK, you and the AFC are good at it---the doers will take your good ideas and put them into action.hahahahaha

 

By the way TK, I just saw your response on the LTCM topic---that thread has become polluted---will discuss LTCM with you in a new thread--another time---will be looking at the Guy/TT T20s finals later today--not keen on discussing finance now.

 

Rev

 


 

The mere fact that you guys are implementing the AFC's Action Plan shows that the AFC is a party of doers. And in spite of its resource shortages it prevented the resource-rich PPP from getting the 55-60% some of you here said it would get. That's some serious doing. I'd say the AFC has won the battle of 2011...will it win the war? 

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:

It makes sense that this is an AFC policy, because it's a bad policy.

The conspiracy theories in which you are schooled did not tell you the difference between corn ethanol and sugar ethanol? 

FM

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

FM
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

Ethanol does not have a carbon footprint. It is carbon neutral....law of conservation of energy. The problem has always been cost with respect to fossil fuel and now much energy is put into its production and from what source. Ethanol can be made of any cellulose source and in time will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuel.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

Ethanol does not have a carbon footprint. It is carbon neutral....law of conservation of energy. The problem has always been cost with respect to fossil fuel and now much energy is put into its production and from what source. Ethanol can be made of any cellulose source and in time will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuel.

Depends on who you talk to, the pro ethanol crowd will say it is neutral and the scientific community will say otherwise.  Clearly though, it has to be subsidized to be profitable for producers. 

FM

Ethanol Pollution Surprise

 
Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says.

In an April 24 letter to the industry's trade group, the Environmental Protection Agency said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities."

Officials in EPA's Chicago office, which oversees nearly half the industry's plants, are planning a meeting with company officials in five states to insist on changes to reduce the emissions.

"So far they've been quite amenable. They're coming in. They're aware of the issues," said Cynthia King, an EPA attorney.

The government's crackdown comes while the ethanol industry presses to significantly expand production as many states phase out another widely used fuel additive, MTBE, because it is polluting water supplies. Last week the Senate passed legislation at the behest of farm groups that would more than double ethanol use by 2010.

"One of the benefits of engaging the industry on this is that they are in a very aggressive growth mode right now," said George Czerniak, chief of the air enforcement and compliance assurance branch in EPA's Chicago office.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being released by the ethanol plants include formaldehyde and acetic acid, both carcinogens. Methanol, although not known to cause cancer, also is classified as a hazardous pollutant.

The fumes are produced when fermented corn mash is dried for sale as a supplement for livestock feed. Devices known as thermal oxidizers can be attached to the plants to burn off the dangerous gases.

Recent tests have found VOC emissions ranging from 120 tons a year, for some of the smallest plants, up to 1,000 tons annually, agency officials said. It isn't known whether the chemicals are hazardous to nearby residents, they said.

When the plants were built, many reported VOC emissions well below 100 tons a year, allowing them to bypass a lengthy and stringent EPA permitting process. Plants with emissions above 100 tons annually are classified as "major sources" of pollution under the Clean Air Act and are more heavily regulated.

States started measuring VOC emissions at ethanol plants about a year ago following complaints of foul odors. One small facility in St. Paul, Minn., had to install $1 million in pollution control equipment to reduce the emissions.

"To the extent that this new test procedure is identifying new VOC emissions, the industry has certainly agreed to address those," said Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the recipient of EPA's letter.

There are 61 ethanol plants, primarily in the Midwest, producing 2.3 billion gallons a year, and another 14 under construction. By the end of next year, the industry's output is expected to reach 3 billion gallons.

EPA's Chicago region oversees 25 plants in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. The agency's Kansas City regional office, responsible for Iowa and Nebraska, two other big ethanol producing states, is still gathering test results. Agency officials there have not said what they will do.

Most ethanol facilities are in rural areas. One that's not, the Gopher State Ethanol plant in St. Paul, Minn., has been the target of complaints from nearby residents. A neighborhood group settled a lawsuit against the company last month.

When the plants were built, it was thought methanol and ethanol would be the major pollutants, said Jim Warner, an official with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

As a gasoline additive, ethanol is seen by environmentalists as having pluses and minuses. Because it is more volatile than other additives, such as MTBE, it increases the release of VOCs from cars. At the same time, it reduces tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and other toxins.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

FM
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 


Guyanese private sector doan have that kind of money for such kind of investment. A sure thing is hotels and casinoes-yuh can c the money on the hour every hour. I am surprised the Chinese have not shown up as yet-u c dey have a special bank dat loan dem money for long term investments.

 

Ethanol is a bad choice-apart for the pollutants created in it generation, all mechanical equipment using the fuel will have to modified. I doan c that happening in Guyana. Therefore, the product will be dumped somewhere.

 

 

S
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

Ethanol does not have a carbon footprint. It is carbon neutral....law of conservation of energy. The problem has always been cost with respect to fossil fuel and now much energy is put into its production and from what source. Ethanol can be made of any cellulose source and in time will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuel.

Depends on who you talk to, the pro ethanol crowd will say it is neutral and the scientific community will say otherwise.  Clearly though, it has to be subsidized to be profitable for producers. 

Correct, but big mouth know-it-all speaketh.

 

On the other point, ethanol is feasible when oil is at a sustained $90 per barrel.  The future of ethanol is precarious as the US expands domestic production of fossil and transition trucks and buses to LNG.  Couple that with efficiency improvement and with the BP projection that the US will be fully self-sufficient by 2030.

 

Anyway, ethanol should be pursued but don't go too much overboard.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

Ethanol does not have a carbon footprint. It is carbon neutral....law of conservation of energy. The problem has always been cost with respect to fossil fuel and now much energy is put into its production and from what source. Ethanol can be made of any cellulose source and in time will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuel.

Depends on who you talk to, the pro ethanol crowd will say it is neutral and the scientific community will say otherwise.  Clearly though, it has to be subsidized to be profitable for producers. 

Correct, but big mouth know-it-all speaketh.

 

On the other point, ethanol is feasible when oil is at a sustained $90 per barrel.  The future of ethanol is precarious as the US expands domestic production of fossil and transition trucks and buses to LNG.  Couple that with efficiency improvement and with the BP projection that the US will be fully self-sufficient by 2030.

 

Anyway, ethanol should be pursued but don't go too much overboard.

===

 

That's a valid point you made about the cheap US LNG. However, I still believe Guyana should convert old sugar estates for ethanol. It will create jobs (factory ones also) and save foreign exchange exchange and unlike what DRUGGIE said sugar ethanol has an energy balance of 8.4 (corn is only 0.4). With coconut and now this Ramo seems to be heading down the right road. If it saves FX the social benefits will be greater than the private costs of making ethanol, thus justifying the industry. 

FM
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

Ethanol does not have a carbon footprint. It is carbon neutral....law of conservation of energy. The problem has always been cost with respect to fossil fuel and now much energy is put into its production and from what source. Ethanol can be made of any cellulose source and in time will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuel.

Depends on who you talk to, the pro ethanol crowd will say it is neutral and the scientific community will say otherwise.  Clearly though, it has to be subsidized to be profitable for producers. 

Correct, but big mouth know-it-all speaketh.

 

On the other point, ethanol is feasible when oil is at a sustained $90 per barrel.  The future of ethanol is precarious as the US expands domestic production of fossil and transition trucks and buses to LNG.  Couple that with efficiency improvement and with the BP projection that the US will be fully self-sufficient by 2030.

 

Anyway, ethanol should be pursued but don't go too much overboard.

===

 

That's a valid point you made about the cheap US LNG. However, I still believe Guyana should convert old sugar estates for ethanol. It will create jobs (factory ones also) and save foreign exchange exchange and unlike what DRUGGIE said sugar ethanol has an energy balance of 8.4 (corn is only 0.4). With coconut and now this Ramo seems to be heading down the right road. If it saves FX the social benefits will be greater than the private costs of making ethanol, thus justifying the industry. 

The trade off will be food and food prices.  If ethanol is produced from a by-product, perfect sense.  The trade off is higher food production which will likely earn more Fx than savings in fuel.  Anyway, I'm not saying no, but one needs to keep an eye on the alternatives and not get distracted with ideology.  The coming crisis is not fuel anymore, it will be food.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

Ethanol does not have a carbon footprint. It is carbon neutral....law of conservation of energy. The problem has always been cost with respect to fossil fuel and now much energy is put into its production and from what source. Ethanol can be made of any cellulose source and in time will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuel.

Depends on who you talk to, the pro ethanol crowd will say it is neutral and the scientific community will say otherwise.  Clearly though, it has to be subsidized to be profitable for producers. 

Correct, but big mouth know-it-all speaketh.

 

On the other point, ethanol is feasible when oil is at a sustained $90 per barrel.  The future of ethanol is precarious as the US expands domestic production of fossil and transition trucks and buses to LNG.  Couple that with efficiency improvement and with the BP projection that the US will be fully self-sufficient by 2030.

 

Anyway, ethanol should be pursued but don't go too much overboard.

===

 

That's a valid point you made about the cheap US LNG. However, I still believe Guyana should convert old sugar estates for ethanol. It will create jobs (factory ones also) and save foreign exchange exchange and unlike what DRUGGIE said sugar ethanol has an energy balance of 8.4 (corn is only 0.4). With coconut and now this Ramo seems to be heading down the right road. If it saves FX the social benefits will be greater than the private costs of making ethanol, thus justifying the industry. 

The trade off will be food and food prices.  If ethanol is produced from a by-product, perfect sense.  The trade off is higher food production which will likely earn more Fx than savings in fuel.  Anyway, I'm not saying no, but one needs to keep an eye on the alternatives and not get distracted with ideology.  The coming crisis is not fuel anymore, it will be food.

I don't think converting established sugar cane fields will increase food prices. If all those house lots on Guysuco lands did not drive up food prices why would this be the case? 

FM
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by BGurd_See:

The PPP had an ethanol plan way before the AFC was conceived. I remember way back when Booker Tate was managing Guysuco there was plans for ethanol production. However the feasibility was questionable as we see the total carbon footprint of ethanol being worse than fossil fuels. In addition ethanol production was only profitable in times of high gasoline prices, $5US and above, probably higher now. That is why the US and other nations subsidize ethanol production. Guyana can not afford to do so given its 3rd world status, ethanol must stand on its own if it is to be viable and its production must be a private sector endeavor. So far we have seen lukewarm interest from the private sector as profit is their motivation and ethanol has low margins at current market prices. 

Ethanol does not have a carbon footprint. It is carbon neutral....law of conservation of energy. The problem has always been cost with respect to fossil fuel and now much energy is put into its production and from what source. Ethanol can be made of any cellulose source and in time will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuel.

Depends on who you talk to, the pro ethanol crowd will say it is neutral and the scientific community will say otherwise.  Clearly though, it has to be subsidized to be profitable for producers. 

Correct, but big mouth know-it-all speaketh.

 

On the other point, ethanol is feasible when oil is at a sustained $90 per barrel.  The future of ethanol is precarious as the US expands domestic production of fossil and transition trucks and buses to LNG.  Couple that with efficiency improvement and with the BP projection that the US will be fully self-sufficient by 2030.

 

Anyway, ethanol should be pursued but don't go too much overboard.

===

 

That's a valid point you made about the cheap US LNG. However, I still believe Guyana should convert old sugar estates for ethanol. It will create jobs (factory ones also) and save foreign exchange exchange and unlike what DRUGGIE said sugar ethanol has an energy balance of 8.4 (corn is only 0.4). With coconut and now this Ramo seems to be heading down the right road. If it saves FX the social benefits will be greater than the private costs of making ethanol, thus justifying the industry. 

The trade off will be food and food prices.  If ethanol is produced from a by-product, perfect sense.  The trade off is higher food production which will likely earn more Fx than savings in fuel.  Anyway, I'm not saying no, but one needs to keep an eye on the alternatives and not get distracted with ideology.  The coming crisis is not fuel anymore, it will be food.

I don't think converting established sugar cane fields will increase food prices. If all those house lots on Guysuco lands did not drive up food prices why would this be the case? 

I agree with regards to sugar as global consumption is in decline anyway.  I meant putting land and resources behind other foods.  I still think food holds a lot of promise for Guyana.

FM
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by baseman:
  The coming crisis is not fuel anymore, it will be food.

Bingo.

Actually 25% of present world food output is wasted. Furthermore, Guyana using centuries old cane fields for this will not have any bearing on global food production. 

FM
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by baseman:
  The coming crisis is not fuel anymore, it will be food.

Bingo.

Actually 25% of present world food output is wasted. Furthermore, Guyana using centuries old cane fields for this will not have any bearing on global food production

When you have nothing to say, it's better to say nothing at all.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by Henry:
Originally Posted by baseman:
  The coming crisis is not fuel anymore, it will be food.

Bingo.

Actually 25% of present world food output is wasted. Furthermore, Guyana using centuries old cane fields for this will not have any bearing on global food production

When you have nothing to say, it's better to say nothing at all.

 

What exactly is your problem? 

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×