From a Wikistrat crowd-sourced simulation: North American Energy Export Boom meta-scenarios

These are the four master narratives that got fleshed out in the first week of the Wikistrat simulation looking at an unfolding/future North American Energy Export Boom.

We went into the exercise with the four implied "bins" of the X-Y:

1. The lose-lose of North America getting the revolution "wrong" by getting the rule-set wrong (too restrictive out of environmental fears or too loose out of greed) and the Rest of the World either contributing to that outcome or exploiting it for their own equally short-term mindset.
2. The lose-win of NorthAm getting it "wrong" and the ROW drilling ahead anyway, "winning" on terms they find acceptable enough, even if NorthAm might define them as a loss.
3. The win-lose of NorthAm getting it "right" but doing so in such a way as to set off a destructive global competition toward that end; and 
4. The win-win of North-Am getting it "right" and triggering a virtuous QWERTY effect where the world benefits similarly.

The Wikistrat crowd came up with about two dozen scenarios, each filled out to the tune of several hundred words spread across about ten fields that explored their up- and down-sides, uncertainties, risks, etc. At the end of that first week, I thereupon read through everything (after commenting all the way during the week) and binned the two dozen into plausible pathways (roughly the order portrayed above in the bullets per bin). Then, taking all those precursing, in-situ and downstream scenarios in hand, I rethought the original notional master narratives, naming them thusly:

• The lose-lose lower-left scenario becomes What the Frack??#*!, suggesting a rude surprise and significant disappointments and a sense of having one's dream destroyed by circumstances beyond one's control. As a stream, it involves a Euro crash delaying investment flow, thus delaying development and allowing negative environmental evidence (water contamination and seismic activity chief among them) to mount. Then you get the environmental counterattack, as the Not In My Backyard Types declare their opposition (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). The "Erin Brockovitch" fights thus begun, foreign competitors swoop in to both steal the technology and complicate its local application through "lawfare" campaigns designed to keep the fracking revolution bogged down in courts for years. By the time all the legal dust settles, what the energy industry can actually exploit in terms of resources is far less than originally imagined, yielding a "red queen" sort of outcome (running in place) where the additional supply tapped is quickly swallowed up by growing domestic demand and the fabled export boom never quite occurs.
• The lose-win master narrative is dubbed, The Gas is Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence, suggesting that, no matter how if unfolds in NorthAm, it seems to go better elsewhere in the world. In NorthAm, a compromise emerges between industry and enviros: short-term regulations allow for a fairly permissive situation but mid-term data collection ensures a legal/regulatory showdown down the road. This situation creates an overall market uncertainty that allows a certain amount of macro-questioning to unfold: Are we trading gains in CO2 emissions (coal to gas on electricity) that are just ruined by releasing more greenhouse gases instead? The NorthAm effort diverges as Canada, less fussy and more greedy in its mindset, moves aggressively to connect its unconventional reserves to Asia and NorthAm industry players decide it's easier to experiment more aggressively abroad, leading to a quick global spread of the technologies. Over time, we witness more desperate Europe (fearing Russian dependence) and Asia (fearing dependence on EVERYONE!) actually moving ahead more successfully with the revolution, with the latter suffering exacerbated water difficulties as a result. In the end, the US, desperate at the lost lead, moves toward national energy companies (public-private partnerships) to try and catch up.
• The win-lose scenario is called, Fits of Peaks, suggesting both more great-power contentiousness (fits of pique) and destabilizing shifts in global energy profiles (akin to the imagined "peak oil" in supply, but here in terms of demand). In this narrative, the US is especially creative in setting up enclaved experiments (the example of letting Native American reservations do things that states cannot) that get around the usual environmental rule-sets. Here, Mexico becomes its own big NAFTA experiment, as the political system there, desperate over PEMEX's decline in oil, sets up a sister national energy company to pursue the fracking revolution and that entity becomes a magnet for investment and aggressive experimentation. Sensing a way to push the Free Trade of the Americas idea, the US uses the lure of cheap energy cooperation to reach out to Latin America in a geostrategically defensive move (good-bye Carter Doctrine focus on the Persian Gulf, and welcome back Monroe Doctrine's historical ambitions regarding the Western Hemisphere's economic and political integration). Yes, OPEC tries to fight back by keeping oil prices low, but the fracking revolution's main impulse (natural gas) still takes off magnificently, giving America a newfound geostrategic confidence that allows it to press China all the more on the negative aspects of its rise in East Asia. The Middle Kingdom, in turn, sensing that America is aggressively organizing the Western Hemisphere to its long-term economic advantage, attempts the same in East Asia. Thus, in an attempt to stave off one sort of strategic vulnerability, the US amplifies another, making this the "be careful what you wish for" scenario.
• The win-win scenario is called, Now We're Cooking with Gas!, which is actually the old marketing catch phrase used in late-19th century America when pushing natural gas stoves as an ungrade to old wood-burning ones. More generally, the phrase has come to refer to a process that has experienced a significant increase in efficiency. Here we talk about the US and Canada coming together to finesse the environmental challenges in a responsible manner, allowing their companies to promote the technology worldwide to their own market advantage. As a result of the long-term boom in incredibly cheap natural gas, King Coal is dealt a death blow first in NorthAm and thereupon globally, as there's now no economic reason for not building gas-fired electricity generation plants almost exclusively (raising the question of what happens to nukes?). Over time, natural gas becomes so plentiful and cheap globally, that a portion of shale gas is siphoned off to gasoline production, so that even the gas-combustion half of hybrid cars are sourced by natural gas - in addition to the electricity part. This development proves a boon for the swapping out of pure gas-combustion automobiles with hybrids and natural-gas fired mass transportation vehicles. Over time, the explosion of cheap energy redefines the North American economic scene, leading to an industrial renaissance and a rebuilding of America's manufacturing industrial base. It also boosts NorthAm's competitive advantage in agriculture, befitting an increasingly voracious global middle class as global climate change stresses crop production in many of the world's emerging economic regions. In the end, all that academic speculation about looming "resource wars" proves to be just that, and the fracking revolution, well-played by North America, is the primary reason why.

Now, with the first week's scenario drill completed, the community moves on to brainstorming and competing their ideas regarding how this range of master narratives could impact the strategic interests of our six main characters: US (NorthAm), EU, China, India, Russia and Brazil.  Naturally, the fate of OPEC will loom throughout the proceedings.

The simulation thereupon unfolds over a third week that focuses on generating strategic options for the six pack of players.

Wikistrat's "The World According to Tom Barnett" 2011 brief, Part 5 (Flow of Food)

In this section of the brief I explore water and how it connects to grain-production centers of gravity, how climate change will impact the flow of food, how that flow will surpass the flow of energy in global importance in the future, and how the Western Hemisphere evolves as a result of its incredible water advantage.

WPR's The New Rules: A Look Ahead at the Geography of Global Security

As part of a “big think” forecast project commissioned by an intelligence community sponsor, I’ve begun to think about the future geography of global security. As often with this kind of project, I find myself falling into list-making mode as I contemplate slides for the brief. So here are nine big structural issues that I think any such presentation must include . . .

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

WPR's The New Rules: Time to Worry About Over-Eating, not Over-Population

The real clash of civilizations in the 21st century will be not over religion, but over food. As the emerging East and surging South achieve appreciable amounts of disposable income, they're increasingly taking on a Western-style diet. This bodes poorly for the world on multiple levels, with the most-alarmist Cassandras warning about imminent resource wars. But the more immediate and realistic concern is the resulting health costs, which will inevitably trigger a rule-set clash between nanny-state types hell-bent on "reining in" a number of globalized industries -- agriculture, food and beverages, restaurants, health care and pharmaceuticals -- and those preferring a more free-market/libertarian stance.

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

The simplest equation on making sufficient food happen

From WSJ interview with Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, CEO of Nestle. 

The global middle class means a good billion more have recently had the opportunity to access meat - high protein of choice, especially for growing bodies. When you want meat, it's a 10-times multiplier on grains or vegetables.

Do-able, says the CEO, if you follow one simple rule: "no food for fuel."

Other two rules: don't fear genetic advances and DO charge for water.

Besides some geographic adjustment on climate change, that's really it. We can handle the new demand without problems, no matter what the fear-mongers tell you. But we can't simultaneously chase "energy independence," which is doofus amidst all the other skyrocketing commodity interdependencies, because we cannot will ourselves into not caring about the Gap.

Simple solutions requiring decent political leadership, which appears - on a global scale right now - to be our one great unrenewable resource.

Time's Battleland: "The future of Fifth Generation Warfare: Follow the food!"

Everybody thinks that the future is going to see fights over energy, when it's far more likely to be primarily over food. Think about it: The 19th century is the century of chemistry and that gets us chemical weapons in World War I. The 20th century is the century of physics and that gets us nuclear weapons in World War II. But the 21st century? That's the century of biology, and that gets us biological weaponry and biological terror. My point: obsessing over nuclear terrorism is steering by our rearview mirror.

Read the entire post at Time's Battleland blog.

Chart of the Day: chocolate consumption (advanced v emerging)

From FT analysis of Kraft buying Cadbury (beating out Hershey) and how controversial that's been in the UK (flagship company and all), but this is no worse that InBev buying Budweiser - heh?

But in both instances, it's the future growth of the Gap countries that drives the purchases (InBev doing well there, Kraft hoping to take advantage of Cadbury's ability to market in India).  So far Kraft doing okay ($29 share price before, $35 since).

The chart on the left explains why:  Core populations can only eat so much more chocolate (few more bodies over time), while Gap and New Core are "discovering" chocolate in a big way (4X the growth because of sheer numbers entering middle-class status).

Same will hold true for food after food and beverage after beverage.

As I've said, it ain't about hearts and minds but bellies and wallets.

The food-land equation

From Jason Clay, World Wildlife Fund in a NYT debate on population:

We currently use 33 percent of the Earth's surface for food.  As 25 percent isn't usable (deserts, cities, roads) and 12 percent is set aside for national parks and the like, we continue to expand the food production frontier each year.  At the current rate of habitat loss, after 40 years, we will have "eaten" nearly all the remaining natural habitat on the planet.  Whatever is sustainable with 7 billion people will not be with 10 billion.

So you add up 33 + 12 + 25 and you're talking 30 percent of the surface that theoretically gets exploited. Population growth (we hit 7 billion around Halloween) to come by 2050 (40 years) is approximately 2.5 (not 3 to make 10B), but let's take the three and say we'll have 40% more people.  

Honestly, considering how low yields are in most ag environments around the world, the notion that we can't support 40 percent more if we boost current land yields and get access to good land freed up by global warming/climate change (unmentionable to any WWF because of the species loss that will necessarily occur) is a huge supposition, given recent history.   For example, America now produces 50% more corn on the same land as it did in 2000.  Remember the corn fields you ran through as a kid.  Impossible today!  Why?  Dense rows of plants.

Clay then goes on to sound ominous notes about food production in 2100 due to per capita (he has to switch his argument there because the pop growth will level off and end mid-century) and he comes up with this meaningless stat that we'll "need to produce an amount of food that is 2.5 times the amount that all human societies have produces in the last 8,000 years."  That one is a pure scare tactic.  Human population was negligible until about 200 years ago and hunter-gathering was the prime route for a major portion of that sub-billion population, so stacking up the previous 7,800 years of ag production is a goofy standard.  Almost as unintelligent as saying we've got more humans alive today than have ever lived!

I do like the stats on the land use, so I blog to remember.

Chart of the day: A global middle class drinks coffee

FT story on how producing countries (mostly Gap) and emerging markets (mostly New Core) are driving an expansion in coffee consumption globally.  

Coffee demand globally is described by one expert as being at a "turning point":

Demand in western Europe and the US is nearing a plateau, while consumption in emerging markets is rising strongly, particularly in coffee-producing countries.

Brazil is considered the exemplar of the trend, and as readers of this blog will note, I've posted in the past about its rapidly expanding middle class and the stunning growth in food consumption there (both more volume and moving up the caloric chain).

Tea is kind of weird:  both high- and low-brow, meaning the rich love their tea and the poor depend on it in much of the world. But the middle class likes its coffee - its stimulus package every ayem.

Good news for producers.

WPR's The New Rules: For U.S., Abandoning the Middle East not a Solution

America's successful assassination of Osama bin Laden, long overdue, naturally renews talk across the country about ending the nation's military involvement in Afghanistan-Pakistan. Coupled with the ongoing tumult unleashed by the Arab Spring, Washington is once again being encouraged to reconsider its strategic relationship with the troubled Middle East. The underlying current to this debate has always been the widely held perception that America's "oil addiction" tethers it to the unstable region. Achieve "energy independence," we are told, and America would free itself of this terrible burden.

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

Nestle gets in on the feast

FT story on a "bolt-on deal" for Nestle:

Nestlé underlined its determination to expand in fast-growing emerging markets with the acquisition of a majority stake in one of China’s best-known regional foods groups.

Nestlé said the deal to buy 60 per cent of family-owned Yinlu Foods Group would spearhead its push into products geared to local tastes. Yinlu, which has had a long association with Nestlé as a co-manufacturer of ready-to-drink Nescafé instant coffee, makes ready-to-drink peanut milk and ready-to-eat canned rice porridge.

No price for Yinlu, which is based in China’s south-east Fujian province, was revealed. Analysts’ estimates for the value of the stake in Yinlu, which has annual sales of about SFr750m ($835m), ranged between SFr540m and SFr1bn.

The deal will deepen Nestlé’s penetration in China, where the Swiss group is already known for its international Nescafé, Maggi and Kit Kat brands, as well as some products sold only domestically.

Paul Bulcke, Nestlé’s chief executive, said the deal “demonstrates our long-term investment in China and our commitment to further developing local brands.”

Analysts said the transaction was another example of multinationals keen to grow in China trying to make or acquire products to suit local consumer tastes.

Nestle is an interesting company, what with the move into pharmanutricals (pharma inserted into foods to make therapy and eating one--sounds weird but it has huge applications in developing regions where nutrients are hard to get, as are drugs) and its aggressive push onto the table of the emerging global middle class.

Nestle has been in China for 20 years and employs 14,000 workers there in 23 factories, but it still feels the need to make buys like this to take full advantage of the growth of the middle class, which likes to eat better, use more electrical appliances, drive cars - for the first time, etc.

I always like to keep an eye on these guys.They think ahead nicely, which is why Nestle is the world's biggest food company. Started in 1867 by Henri Nestle in Switzerland. He makes the first milk food for a baby and uses it to save his neighbor's child. Nestle is also one of the most boycotted companies in the world. Why? Food is a very touchy subject - as are babies.

More aid versus better government: the illusion of Live Aid's success--in retrospect

Brutal bit of analysis in WSJ op-ed by John-Clark Levin (who has a hyphenated first name, I ask you?).

Ground zero for the famine 25 years ago was Ethiopia, hence my newly heightened interest.

$283M raised, but a subsequent BBC investigation says that "so much of the money went to arms instead of food that it may have prolonged and deepened Ethiopia's humanitarian catastrophe."

The later UN relief effort in Somalia wasn't much better, as 80% of the food aid was stolen, such was the bad security situation, which only stabilized after the US Marines showed up in 1992.  Once we withdrew after "Black Hawk Down," the situation once again deteriorated there.

Now fast forward to 2006, when severe drought once again struck. This time, Kenya and Ethiopia, with relatively stable governments, were able to cope far better than lawless Somalia. The easing of food shortages in the Congo over the past five years happened for similar reasons--better local governance.

Levin's point:  "Famine and poverty cannot be solved with charity alone.  We can only stop them by putting an end to corruption and instability."

A certain administering to the system, I might call it. 

Another era when it comes to child labor on farms

NYT story on how Labor Dept. is cracking down on farms that employ children and pay them less than the minimum wage.

Story caught my eye because I spent a few years as a child (above 12 but below 18) working on a local farm for what was then less than the minimum wage (I got paid $3/hr and thought that was pretty good in the late 1970s).  A 1938 US law allows kids 12 and over to work on farms with almost no limitations or rules, but Labor is changing that landscape because nowadays, it's most migrant kids doing the labor.

The Obama administration has opened a broad campaign of enforcement against farmers who employ children and underpay workers, hiring hundreds of investigators and raising fines for labor and wage violators.

A flurry of fines and mounting public pressure on blueberry farmers is only the opening salvo, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said in an interview. Ms. Solis, the daughter of an immigrant farm worker, said she was making enforcement of farm-labor rules a priority. At the same time, Congress is considering whether to rewrite the law that still allows 12-year-olds to work on farms during the summer with almost no limits.

The blueberry crop has been drawing workers to eastern North Carolina for decades, but as the harvest got under way in late May, growers stung by bad publicity and federal fines were scrambling to clean up their act, even going beyond the current law to keep all children off the fields. The growers were also ensuring that the workers, mainly Hispanic immigrants, would make at least the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

“I picked blueberries last year, and my 4-year-old brother tried to, but he got stuck in the mud,” said Miguel, a 12-year-old child of migrants. “The inspectors fined the farmers, and this year no kids are allowed.”

Child and rights advocates said they were encouraged by these signs of federal resolve, but they were also waiting to see how wide and lasting the changes would be. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of children under 18 toil each year, harvesting crops from apples to onions, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch detailing hazards to their health and schooling and criticizing the Labor Department for past inaction.

Most definitely a different era, but hard to argue against improving the lot of low-tech, low-education workers in this country, because impoverishing them serves nobody's needs.

I remember my farm labor with a certain romanticism, although I don't know any grown-up former farm kids who do, because they worked the longest hours and didn't really get paid.  Plus, there was no quitting the family farm until adulthood got them an out, which most took, happy enough if they left with all their fingers in tact.

Chart(s) of the day: the "polio of agriculture" versus biotech ag

Trio of Economist articles/editorials on ag trends.

Stem rust is resurgent in Africa and heading northeast toward Central Asia and the Eurasian breadbasket states.  Once wheat's deadliest scourge, it hasn't been this strong since before the Green Revolution. Borlaug's original research and breakthroughs involved controlling stem rust.  Now reborn, it's centered in Africa's great lake states and features a footprint stretching from South Africa to Iran. Like a polio resurgent, the current generations of plants have little immune-system capacity to resist it, having gone decades without "infection."

The current version is known as Ug99 for Uganda 1999.

Meanwhile, biotech is beginning to take off in a serious way, having survived the financial crisis nicely, the technologies long pursued are now mature enough for full commercialization.  Moreover, "developing countries are emerging as major markets and sources of innovation for industrial biotech."

Another food giant shifts to bottom-of-the-pyramid selling

WSJ story on how the French food company Danone, of yogurt fame, is now focusing on market expansion in emerging and developing economies.

Danone has ruled the high-end healthy products niche for a while, making it one of the fastest growing food companies in the world.

But momentum is slowing in the company’s traditional, rich-world markets in North America and Western Europe.

And so it’s moving into the Gap big time, meaning “Danone is among a vanguard of Western multinational staking much of their future on the world’s poor.”

A decade ago, Danone got 6% of its revenue from emerging markets.  Today it’s 42%

Digging deeper, the company is now trying to target customers who live on dollar-a-day food budgets.

Danone’s CEO says “the objective is to do business not just with the top of the pyramid.”

“GLOBALIZATION MARCHS ON!” cries the newsreel announcer.

Foot-and-mouth threatens Japan's cattle industry

NYT story on foot-and-mouth (called hoof-and-mouth where I came from) outbreak in Japan threatening to tank it's prized beef industry.

The fear is legitimate.  Similar thing happened with mad cow in the US in the early part of last decade and our beef exports dropped dramatically overnight, and still haven't totally recovered--last time I checked.

You see the rising networks and the incredibly vulnerability and you think, this is where terrorism will go in this century.

As the New Core seeks food security, the Gap suffers less of the same

AP story via Vonne Barnett.

The basic problem persists:

Families from Pakistan to Argentina to Congo are being battered by surging food prices that are dragging more people into poverty, fueling political tensions and forcing some to give up eating meat, fruit and even tomatoes.

Scraping to afford the next meal is still a grim daily reality in the developing world even though the global food crisis that dominated headlines in 2008 quickly faded in the U.S. and other rich countries.

With food costing up to 70 percent of family income in the poorestcountries, rising prices are squeezing household budgets and threatening to worsen malnutrition, while inflation stays moderate in the United States and Europe. Compounding the problem in many countries: prices hardly fell from their peaks in 2008, when global food prices jumped in part due to a smaller U.S. wheat harvest and demand for crops to use in biofuels.

Majeedan Begum, a Pakistani mother of five, said a bag of flour for bread, the staple of her family's diet, costs three times what it did two years ago in her hometown of Multan. She can no longer afford meat or fruit.

"My domestic budget has been ruined," said Begum, 35.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's food price index — which includes grains, meat, dairy and other items in 90 countries — was up 22 percent in March from a year earlier though still below 2008 levels. In some Asian markets, rice and wheat prices are 20 to 70 percent above 2008 levels, it says.

Many governments blame dry weather and high fuel costs but critics in countries such as India, Argentina and Egypt say misguided policies are making shortages worse and collusion by suppliers might be pushing up prices.

No single factor explains the inflation gap between developing and developed countries but poorer economies are more vulnerable to an array of problems that can push up prices, and many are cropping up this year.

Farmers with less land and irrigation are hit harder by drought and floods. Civil war and other conflicts can disrupt supplies. Prices in import-dependent economies spike up when the local currency weakens, as Pakistan's rupee has this year.

Costs also have been pushed up by a rebound in global commodity prices, especially for soy destined for Asian consumption. That has prompted a shift in Argentina and elsewhere to produce more for export, which has led to local shortages of beef and other food. The global financial crisis hurt food production in some countries by making it harder for farmers to get credit for seed and supplies.

An old paradigm approach (developed versus developing) hides the underlying reality: the price rises aren't a West-versus-rest dynamic, but a New Core-versus-Gap dynamic.  An emerging middle class in the New Core eats better--and more--and that demand for commodities drives up prices for everybody (to the extent that government subsidies are overwhelmed).

Yes, amidst that compelling dynamic, you can cite all the usual suspects in developing and underdeveloped economies, but you're missing the new forest for the usual trees.

Clearest evidence are New Core pillars and rich Arab petrocracies buying up farmland across the Gap.  The West isn't doing that.

So understand this as a problem of globalization's success, and stop defining it in old-speak.

The Chinese take a page from my Irish ancestors

WAPO story.

The gist:

The Chinese government has begun ramping up research, production and training related to the humble spud, and hopes are high that it could help alleviate poverty and serve as a bulwark against famine.

The challenge of feeding a growing nation on a shrinking supply of arable land while confronting severe water shortages has long been a major concern here. China has to feed one-fifth of the world's population on one-tenth of its arable land, and the nation's expanding cities are consuming farmland at breakneck speed. China estimates that by 2030, when its population is expected to level off at roughly 1.5 billion, it will need to produce an additional 100 million tons of food each year.

That statistical reality could change eating habits here. Potatoes need less water to grow than rice or wheat, and they yield far more calories per acre. 

Makes you wonder why the Irish got so heavy into potatoes, because there's no shortage of water there.  Must be the tough growing season.

But the pattern is clear enough:  cut back on water-intensive crops and move into more hardier fare (rice to potatoes).  Obviously, rice isn't going anywhere, but as one Chinese ag expert put it, "Rice, wheat, corn -- we've gone about as far as we can go with them. But not the potato."

Some perspective on this shift:  China actually ALREADY produces and consumes more potatoes than any other in the world. But when it comes to consumption, because we're talking such a huge population, the Chinese lag in per capita terms, eating only one-third the amount of potatoes that Russians do and two-thirds the amount Americans eat.

If I could get every Chinese to eat a potato a day . . ..

The sweet potato silver-bullet?

WSJ story on how researchers are trying to achieve a more industry-friendly sweet potato.  Unlike its rather uniform cousin, the russet potato, sweet potatoes come in irregular shapes and with irregular sugar content. There's been a push for years to get a single major fast-food chain to pick up sweet potato fries as a healthier alternative--a goal I first ran into at the Clinton presidential library/graduate school years back (a regional ag improvement scheme that struck me as worthy).  The trick is not getting the fries industry to change its machinery so much as getting the sweet potato sector to change the shape and consistency of its product so that the fries industry can process them with the same speed and sustainability as russet potatoes.

Right now there is some sweet potato fries production, using regular potato machinery, and ConAgra is set to open this fall in Louisiana (coincidentally not far from Little Rock) what it claims will be the first dedicated processing plant generating fries, waffles and other products.

Sweet potatoes are not actually potatoes, but the roots of a plant.  The goal of researchers at places like ConAgra is to modify the vegetable to the point where it consistently grows out into a brick-like shape with more uniform color/sugar content.  One line of breeding already seems close to the goal, suggesting a mass production capacity down the road (optimistic is 3-5 years, pessimistic is 7-10).

The invasion of the hypermarkets!

Carrefour plunges into India, putting all manner of corner markets at risk.  It follows Wal-Mart, which opened its first store in the north last year.

For now, supermarkets account for only 5% of grocery sales in India, where middlemen rule.  Laws prevent outsiders from coming in.

But that will inevitably change, not because of the big, bad foreign hypermarkets, but because India's emerging and voluminous middle class will demand more than one brand of rice at one price.  Already, Wal-Mart plans a dozen more stores and reports very positive noises coming from the bureaucracy on this subject.  Why?  A government-sponsored study said that the small shops, when presented with such challenge, lost a lot in the first year but then recovered, presumably by selling differently to maintain their niche rather than their monopoly.

Long-term project by Wal-Mart and Carrefour.  Only the deep-pocketed should apply.

But serious profits await for the stubborn and persistent.