Introduction
The columns I have written so far on the sugar industry, starting on May 29, 2011 are intended to conclude with a broad appraisal of its prospects and suggestions for the way forward. From this perspective, the importance of the three preliminary considerations examined in last week’s column, cannot be over-emphasized. The Skeldon Sugar Modernization Project (SSMP) provides a stark warning against mis-management. It has been far too long in the making, given its size and scale, even by the snail-paced standards of agricultural projects in developing countries. It has many of the classic features of a boondoggle or white elephant project. The records show that, as we approach a decade-and-a-half after its commencement, it is still not certain when the project will be fully operational!
Further, readers were alerted last week that the SSMP was intended to be immediately followed by the expansion of Albion and the closure of Rose Hall. Indeed, this extension was scheduled for completion as long as four years ago.
It was also noted that, in retrospect, there was a clear error of judgement on the part of the government in accepting Booker Tate and GuySuCo’s self-serving rationalizations to finance the expansion of sugar output beyond 450,000 tonnes in order to “secure economies of scale,” thereby lowering unit costs of production. With unit costs of producing sugar in Guyana both high and rising, the scale economies, which could potentially be afforded by this expansion, are marginal, when one relates this to the size and scale of cane sugar industries around the world with which GuySuCo would have to compete, if we continued to export sugar.
It should be recalled that I have also speculated the government might well have been pre-disposed to being duped, because of the lavish benefits that the SSMP project analysis portrayed as coming to one of its largest and most dynamic political constituencies. Next week I shall offer a sample of these benefits touted by GuySuCo to the government.
Questions raised
Readers might well ask at this stage: why were the proposed new factories at Skeldon and Albion considered so urgent? In response I would argue that, first and foremost, this was because the then existing factories on those sugar estates were aged and had long outlived their efficient lives. The planned increase in cane cultivation on the estates required that factory grinding capacity correspondingly rise to around 350-420 tonnes cane per hour. At the time the Skeldon factory, which was built in 1924, had a rated capacity of only 90 tonnes cane per hour.
Technological developments affecting factory operations (and as we shall see next week agricultural ones too) had by the late 1990s made substantial leaps. An efficient and competitive Guyana sugar industry required that several of those developments were incorporated in strategically-located factories.
Another key question is: what were the new innovations? First, process control needed to be centralized and reliant on digital technology. Second, continuous vertical crystallizers were required for increased sucrose recovery. Third, short retention clarifiers impeded colour formation, thereby improving sugar quality. Fourth, continuous vacuum pans were essential to further enhance product quality and stabilize steam flows. Fifthly, by then it had also become well established that installed sugar driers were essential components for improving sugar quality.
From a wider standpoint significant value-added could be obtained if the new factories were large enough to incorporate co-generation capacity through the installation of high pressure boilers and pass out/condensing turbo alternators.
To aid in lowering capital and operating costs, four other technological improvements were required, namely 1) the incorporation of continuous ‘B’ centrifugals; 2) intensive sugar cane preparation; 3) the installation of diffusers to enhance sugar extraction; and 4) the installation of punt dumpers to reduce cost and increase efficiency in the off-loading of sugar cane.
Expected benefits
These technological developments were expected to yield considerable benefits, including 1) improved factory productivity (as measured by the conversion rates of tonnes cane per tonne sugar); 2) reduced unit cost of production; and 3) improved sugar quality.
The schedule below displays the key specifications of the new Skeldon factory.
Schedule: Skeldon Sugar Factory Specifications
Skeldon Sugar Modernization Project – New Factory Statistics
● Sugar production 116,000 ts/y
● Cane consumption 1,115,000 tc/y
● Cane processing rate 8,400 tc/d
● Hourly processing rate 350 tch
● Sugar production 35.5 tch
● Pol extracting ` 97.00
● Overall recovery 85.5%
● Boiling house recovery 88.10%
● Sugar quality Pol – 99.30%
Colour – <1,350 Icumsa
Moisture -, 0.18%
Grade – VHP
● Steam pressure 54 bar
● Boiler capacity 2X 125 ts/h
● Boiler efficiency 86.0%
● Steam temperature 485 deg C
● Power generation capacity (steam) 2 x 15 MW sets
● Power generation capacity (diesel) 2X2.5 MW & 1X5.0 MW sets
● Total generating capacity 40 MW
● Export capability 25 MW
Source: Y Abdul (Guysuco) and D. Munasinghe (Booker Tate Ltd).
