MR. Gouveia’s letter published in the Stabroek News rightfully requested that four prominent critics of the Amaila Falls project give us the basis behind their decision not to support this project, in the face of the published facts available. He skillfully boiled down the various claims into four simple questions, while providing the facts available regarding the answers to them. 

Two other news items in the Chronicle provide more information on what data the opposition had and how they responded to it.  It is clear that the major reasons for the opposition to the project was political and personality driven.  Any financial or other aspects of the contract could have been addressed and hopefully resolved during the many encounters with GoG and SG.  
AFC used the IDB review and APNU various reasons, up to what appears to be a new one, the competency of Mr. Brassington’s management ability to explain their concerns.
 
Here is when it gets interesting. Mr. Granger wants to see the project run like what was done in the 1970s with massive amount of planning (not present in this project he says), and entities set up to oversee infrastructure, roads etc. Mr. Greenidge, also expressed reservations about the capacity of the government to deal with the hydro’s construction. APNU stressed that Guyana has the talents to make the project a reality, with even officials of the coalition who have knowledge of the workings of hydro.
We know how that worked out. Two questions, first why did they not raise these issues at the various meetings? Secondly, are they seeking places on the project for the persons who “had knowledge of the workings of hydro”? If so, why not say so.  Like Gouveia, I am simply asking.