Dear Editor,
There was an interesting discourse in a Stabroek News letter of Thursday, July 20, 2017 on the subject if ethanol, remarkable for its disconnected reasoning, and admitted assumptions (Why did GuySuCo not pursue the ethanol option?’).
The latter, however, offers the benefit to others of taking the risks of also making assumptions.
For example, is it not fair to assume that the former Minister who is reported to have bought a rather expensive ethanol facility (at an undisclosed time) to be installed at Albion Estate, should be asked to account for its non-operation and non-production?
Is it fair to assume that since the EU withdrawal was predicted to ACP producers during the regime of the last administration, it was to the latter to whom the now posthumous queries about change should have been addressed – at least a decade ago?
How does one account for that timely eloquent silence, and the now conveniently late eruption of concern?
How, next, does the assertion about revolutionising production methods, declining [unverified] consumer demand, etc, relate to the outdated technology of sugar factories many decades old, and in need of prohibitively costly replacements?
How come that the very argumentation regarding new technology conveniently ignores the Chinese puzzle at Skeldon?
The certain answer to this dialogue is that we are only entitled to our assumptions.
The certain fact is that Brazil has reduced the production of ethanol in the face of too low oil prices.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
