I was not looking at a project justification, you referred to the 40% to GDP.  My point is you are correct, that why you "marry" the debt to the investment and ensure the revenues from investment services and amortizes the debt, this way you ensure accountability.  If this could be done by reducing energy costs as a % to GDP over time, then you are on the right track as you are replacing another imported source. The reason I referred to this is because the GDP will benefit in indirect ways and at the highest level, it's a sustainability measure, not an accountability measure.

Greece, Spain, Italy are in a mess as they were funding Social spending through debt financing.  This is a fools paradise.

so . . . after talking shit like:

"How you you do a payback for a major highway?  This is like that."

and

confused foolishness about non-applicability of NPV considerations to Amaila Falls, you are reduced to little more than "build it, they will come . . ."

BTW, how do you figure "ample power supply" being a benefit if the cost breaks the back of the Guyanese people?

Ohh, look what the cat dragged in.

yessss . . . no place to hide for U

It does have similarities as not all benefits will be "metered".

dummy, i'm speaking holistically; which includes retiring the monster debt . . . it's the cost stupid

and look up "fungibility" . . . as in "money is fungible"

Yes clown, that's what I said on the accountability side but even then there will be benefits not accounted from in the "meter".  I assume it will be it's own corporation with separate balance sheet and P&L reflecting the debt and the debt financing costs.  Now, what's your exact beef?

Your mind seems "fungible".  Look up accountability.

There is a CLOWN in The Simpsons on Fox, is dat TK????

well, given the rapidly escalating cost estimates, and since you have no numbers . . . tell me, @ what price does this thing become unfeasible . . . or are you assuming viability at any price

faith in the PPP & "assumptions" that are only in your head is not a proper answer

I cannot tell you numbers, but I can tell you the high-level process to ensure value-for-money.

In such a case you do the scenarios with the varying assumption with a high-side and a low-side, a worse-case and best-case.  You do an as-is and to-be since "as-is" is the only known component of the equation.  You double-down on the alternative options which brings you to a better state than the "as-is", the better state being a lower unit cost that is currently the case and other 'soft" factors.

The next step would be to stress-test, audit, challenge the assumptions/drivers which are the factors in making the "to-be" a better alternative.  This is where it get sticky as these assumptions are the NPV drivers and are sometimes opaque or dependent on other assumptions, some of which are not under your control.

(For example, the PNC's hydro project, the major make-or-break assumption was global demand and prices for aluminum ingots.  This assumption had to consider recycling, global demand for say aircraft, alternatives/composites, supply competition, etc, etc.  As you can see, you are soon deep into multi-layered assumptions outside your control).

In the case of Amelia falls, without a clear industrial driver, they will have to look at overall economic growth and demand, generation alternatives and the costs of doing this.  What makes this more of a guess work is you have a "chicken and egg" scenario, you are using the economy to justify the investment but some of the economic boost will come from this investment itself.  The stress test will include benchmarks, shared best practices, other experiences, etc.

When you are comfortable then you need to lock the assumptions and those under your control, eg. build-out costs, timelines etc, are tightly managed.  If your worse case is close to your "as-is", then you are probably in a good and justifiable situation and should explore.  In the case of Guyana, with the current high unit costs, a significant reduced unit-cost should be targeted.

I'm reserved on any proponent assumptions as they will make the case as favorable to justify the request.  This is where an independent objective and professional audit and stress-testing are important.  The numbers are the numbers and you can influence them to what you want them to be.  The question, do they stand the test of cross-examination.

Pavi what are you saying bhai? How dem cuttahs? 

I am not interested in a recitation of the "high-level process to ensure value-for-money" . . . that's called a pose, addressing nothing . . . wasting time.

From day-1 of their stewardship of the Amaila Falls project, the PPP Gov't have functioned as if their fiduciary responsponsibilities lie with the NEPS, allied conmen and party apparatchik X-percenters rather than the Guyanese people [ditto the giveaway of Guyana's oil development rights to that joke of a "Canadian oil company" CGX].

Unlike you, I have empirical shit on my side: Exhibit A = the egregious Fip Motilall, the shameful lies, the tenacious, ongoing, criminal dance to ensure that the right people get paid . . .

With low thinking people in high positions, the evidence is overwhelming that graft & opportunities for rent seeking is driving this hydro deal bus; which is why no hike in the project cost (no matter how large, apparently) gives these grifters pause or reason for reassessment . . . whither U?

Do you really need me to spell out what the "high-level process . . ." in play here really is all about?

Re-read my initial post . . . "Fiduciary" is an interesting word

[QUOTE]....I cannot tell you numbers, but I can tell you the high-level process to ensure value-for-money....The PPP Base boy got promoted, he now part of the "high-level process"...dis position will entitle he to a plot in prodoville one or maybe two..

Let's face it: if they find oil off the coast we won't need the hydro dam. So why push along with a project of such immense cost? I'll tell you why. So that large scale fraud can be committed.