Dear Editor,
In a Kaieteur News article which appeared Jan 10 on the government seeking to silence critics of the Hope Canal, President Jagdeo was reported to have stated that design of the Hope Canal Project was done by Mott McDonald, a foreign entity. However, in Notice Papers Nos 496 and 497 of the 9th Parliament of Guyana, the detailed drawings for the conservancy head regulator and the canal listed Messrs Narine, Oudkerk and Yussuff as checkers for the plans, while Mr Latchmansingh approved them. Noticeably absent from the plans which were not signed and sealed by the responsible engineering firm which prepared them, was the name of the person/or persons who designed the structures. It was noted from the plans that the names of the personnel which appeared therein were from the local engineering firms CEMCO and SRKN’gineering, and no Mott McDonald joint venture staff were named as participants in the design of these structures. Given the complexity and cost of this project it is important that the public be informed as to what aspect of project design and construction Mott McDonald is responsible for. In this way should the canal fail to perform as per its design criteria and/or design flaws were found subsequently after construction, the government could go after the responsible party for damages and cost recovery individually or jointly in a manner similar to that which the United States is now going after those responsible with some success for faulty design and poor construction of an oil rig with consequential oil spill damage along its Gulf Coast. In hindsight, the government should take heed and avoid another Good Hope Stelling fiasco, where so far no one has been held responsible for its poor design and construction and the government seems unable to institute means to recoup its losses since it has taken full responsibility to do the remedial works to make the stelling operable without seeking redress at the appropriate forum.
The engineering design submitted for this canal project suggests that some of the data used are questionable or some of the assumptions faulty, which could lead to serious flaws resulting in escalating costs and construction difficulties. I wish to draw attention to a few herein. The pile layout for the head regulator shows a design requirement for 301 greenheart piles 90ft long. However, the notes state that the contractor will have to drive test piles before the engineer makes a final determination on pile configuration. It is imperative that before any engineer could design a foundation for a structure intelligently, he must have a reasonably accurate conception of the physical properties and the arrangements of the underlying materials. Field and laboratory investigations are required to obtain this essential information. Why was this not done for the foundation of this structure to enable the engineer to make a final determination on pile arrangement, since the test pile results could substantially alter existing design assumptions causing the project to fall behind schedule and waste scarce resources. Secondly, why is a 10m wide gabion basket mat required upstream of the regulator when scouring is a more likely problem downstream. Thirdly, the bed width of the canal upstream of the regulator is 47m while downstream it is 30m. Because there is no gradual and uniform change in cross section, this channel irregularity will lead to scouring of the canal downstream of the regulator and bank protection will be required to stabilize it. Hence an additional cost to the contract and a windfall for the contractor.
Finally, no feasibility study was undertaken for this project and therefore its costs and benefits to ensure that the country’s limited resources are put to their best possible use were never established. Hence before claims of savings of $600 million on project costs or losses to the community of US$l5M in the event of a serious flood were made, Minister of Agriculture Persaud should have initiated an appraisal process to enable a systematic scrutiny of plausible alternatives to be made to justify project execution or otherwise.
Yours faithfully,
Charles Sohan
