I can only agree with both of you, Mats and Dan, that a discussion over a glass of something is much better than through a computer.
The gfunny thing is, I think you above posts are in fact sides of the smae coin, bassed on'what I've read from both of you.
You (and I) worry about the new plans, because of the destruction of irreplaceble nature. This may partly be based on what we see every day in our own countries (where harldy any nature exists), but also based on what has happened in other developing countries.
How many people in Panama prosper because of the Chamel?
That is the other side of the coin: If these investments are made, will 'Pablo average' benefit from it? It will require a huge lot of money, which could be spend differently, and will destroy part (or all) the ecosystem in the Lake Nicaragua. This destruction will for instance result in less fish on the markets.
So, referring to Dans first posting, I hope the plans will be made thinking of 'pablo average' his wallet