I pity the poor Europeans and Middle Easterners who will now suffer higher prices.  That's assuming this was good stuff and not "ditch weed" comparable to the "millions of dollars worth of pot" cleared by citizen volunteers every year in this country.

Somebody didn't pay their bribes.

phreddy wrote:

fnord wrote:

I pity the poor Europeans and Middle Easterners who will now suffer higher prices.  That's assuming this was good stuff and not "ditch weed" comparable to the "millions of dollars worth of pot" cleared by citizen volunteers every year in this country.

Ditch weed for sure.  $34 million value for 50 tons of weed?  $336 a pound.  $21 a lid.  And $2 billion plants only yielding about an ounce each?  Ditch weed!

The article used the spelling tonnes, each tonne is 2205 pounds as opposed to a US ton (short ton) which is 2000 pounds.  To make a long story short, my calculation of the yield for each plant comes out to .0009 ounce (rounded up) per plant.  That is pathetic!

Last edited by fnord (2009-08-12 16:10:03)

orangeplus wrote:

50 tonnes of HASH, not plants

What we are looking for here is yield per plant.  50 tonnes * 2205 pounds * 16 ounces = 1,764,000 ounces.  1,764,000 ounces divided by 2,000,000,000 plants = 0.000882 ounces of hash produced per plant.

Decadence wrote:

fnord wrote:

The article used the spelling tonnes, each tonne is 2205 pounds as opposed to a US ton (short ton) which is 2000 pounds.

Not to be a weight and measurements "nazi"; but, its 2,240 punds if I re-call correctly.

Well at least you are not a spelling nazi.

Jeez, what are you guys, the Weed IRS, making sure that nobody cheats on their baggies?