GuySuCo fails to address the issue raised by Vieira

Dear Editor,

What is wrong with GuySuCo? Can’t they write sensible arithmetic? They cannot compare 70 litres of ethanol per ton of cane with 260 litres of ethanol per ton of something they don’t mention in the letter to SN of Aug 12, 2017 from their Senior Communications Officer (‘Molasses would be the preferred raw material for ethanol production in Guyana’). Is it that their technical people are too busy to proofread this letter? Or is it that they lack the competence to do so?

Let me spell out the omissions. Molasses comes from cane, therefore to cite 260 litres per ton of (we have to guess molasses) is infantile without citing the ratio of cane to molasses and the costs of conversion! No proper comparison or assessment can be made.

GuySuCo fails to address the issue raised by Mr Tony Vieira. He is calling for a study of the economics of converting the cane juice to ethanol versus converting molasses to ethanol. All those mostly inaccessible references provided at the end of the letter are useless without a single citation from them that addresses that issue.

GuySuCo must also be flunked on the grounds of hypocrisy and being the cause of its own misery, for designating concerned and technically qualified citizens as “ill-informed” about the sugar pol while providing absolutely no record of sugar pol on its own website.

I have a serious difficulty with the employment of communications officers who don’t understand the subject. It indicates that the corporation has money to waste while those who claim to be technical people are hiding. Let the communications officers spend their time typing the voluminous technical data accumulated over the past years into the website in an accessible manner instead of attempting to mislead the public.

Yours faithfully,

Alfred Bhulai

Around the Web