I refer to the letter by Peter Gatt (April 7) in which he is clearly not impressed by the efforts of the civil engineering community as regards ground engineering. In so being, Mr Gatt missed the point of my article of March 26, which was not about the St John's museum excavation itself but on the debate that ensued. A debate in which both sides were correct, in my opinion. People (Mr Gatt included) were right in being skeptical about excavations, because they can be extremely damaging, while engineers dutifully suggested ways and means that could mitigate the risks involved.

What is missing on these islands is the mechanism to ensure that the necessary studies are carried out to the required detail and that technology is actually put to use to keep people's minds at rest when carrying out excavations. This is equally relevant for minor projects that do not require EIAs and is why the authorities can, and should, intervene to improve the situation.

Shelving St John's project was the right decision, not because solutions do not exist, as Mr Gatt seems to imply, but because our country is not yet fully attuned towards seeking and implementing these solutions.

Many times we simply do not have the luxury (as we had in St John's) of deciding whether to do or not to do a project - it just needs to be done, irrespective of the geology.

This is one of the reasons why geologists are indispensable in increasing our collective understanding of ground materials. Moreover, it is pointless to identify problems without attempting to find solutions and this is why geologists, geotechnical engineers and structural engineers all need to work together, rather than attempting to belittle each other's work and opinions.