Romanex’s application to the state for permission to conduct alluvial mining in the Marudi Mountain, Region Nine jars for three reasons. First, inherent in the frenetic marketing of the Low Carbon Development Strategy by the government is an acceptance that Guyana is committed to radically revamping the old paradigm of resource extraction with its dubious returns in favour of preservation and a minimizing of environmental degradation. Second, alluvial mining in creeks in the sensitive ecosystem of the Rupununi carries with it significant risks to the health and livelihoods of the inhabitants of that area without a guarantee that their lives will be improved in a sustained and sustainable manner. Third, given the scale of the environmental challenges that will be posed by the project, it will require upgrading of the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to police the processes, something that the government has historically shown little interest in.
Investment is desperately needed in this country and therefore the efforts of Romanex and its partners to commit to this project must be applauded. However, the potential environmental fallout requires careful examination before a decision is finally made to approve. The country’s experience with Omai Gold Mines Limited demands caution. Omai’s reign here saw the worst environmental disaster ever experienced by the country when cyanide-laced effluent from a breached tailings pond coursed through the Essequibo River and its tributaries, disrupting the lives of riverain folk, sickening some of them, killing large numbers of fish and leaving question marks about the long-term impact of the spill. It would be a cavalier EPA and State that ignores this troubling past and the many unresolved questions of causation, culpability, compensation and consequences. In the Omai case, the major 1995 breach of the tailings dam was preceded by a smaller one which the company had initially not reported to the authorities. Whatever precautions needed to be taken as a result of the earlier problem to prevent the major breach in 1995 were clearly not bothered with; this despite the fact that tailings dams have historically been a menace to communities worldwide. Even though, Romanex will not be employing cyanide in its gold recovery there is nonetheless production intensive aspects of this operation that will require strict oversight by both the environmental and mining authorities.
EIA’s – before leading to approvals of projects – should mandate an audit of the capacity of the EPA to discharge its oversight functions adequately. It is ill-advised for a project of this type to be approved if the EPA will be out of its depths. With an extremely low profile in this country and very few evident cases of positive intervention on behalf of the environment, the EPA would definitely have to get its act together. This should be the starting point of the evaluation of whether approvals should ever be granted – is the EPA up to the job?
As is usually the case, the project summary and the presentations at the recent scoping meeting at Aishalton blithely offered assurances on a range of things. For example, the creeks to be excavated and diverted will be restored to their natural state and a reclamation plan would be worked out. All well and good except that when the time came for Omai to fulfill the terms of its reclamation plan it was conveniently let off by the government which came up with the incredible excuse that mining might still be pursued in some of the areas hence there was no need to fill in and restore the area. Omai had already gone its entire period of extraction here without paying a single cent in corporation tax and was quite unacceptably relieved of its inception commitments to restore the landscape for a promise of some future mining. Such a fate may well await the citizens of the Rupununi. Reclamation and restoration of these sensitive areas should be absolutely guaranteed by some retention or bond within any ensuing licence.
Alluvial mining also collides violently with the environmental aspirations for the region. There are any number of areas that could be included in a protected areas system as is being done for the Kanuku Mountains and other areas. Why not Marudi? Can the disruptive type of mining being envisaged for Marudi be reconciled with and justified next to protected areas or conservation projects such as Iwokrama? Protection of Rupununi wetlands to be hopefully enshrined soon within the parameters of the Ramsar Convention is also another aspiration of the region that conflicts with this venture.
What this project entails for the extraction of gold is not reassuring. Sections of forest have to be cleared. Before mining commences, the creeks will be diverted, if necessary, by excavating a channel to connect points on the creek upstream and downstream of the mineralized zone. Pay dirt will then be removed by an excavator working in the direction counter to flow in the creeks, that is, from downstream to upstream. Each mineralized zone will be excavated as several ponds consisting of bands. Excavation will only commence on another band after completion of the removal of pay dirt from the preceding band. Alluvial deposits will be mined by open pit methods in the creeks’ flats. An all-weather gravel surfaced roadway, approximately 8 metres wide, will be constructed over the surface on the road linking Marudi to Aishalton, which is 45 kilometres long. A 20 metres corridor will also be cleared of vegetation to create this roadway.
With the imminent opening of the Takutu Bridge and the expected surge of miners and others, Marudi and nearby areas can be overwhelmed by environmental and other problems. It was also of interest that questions were raised at the scoping meeting about how the residents would benefit directly from this project and whether they possessed the requisite skills that would allow them to take up the jobs that might become available.
Further, as pointed out in a letter in Saturday’s edition of SN by GAP ROAR MP Everall Franklin and Candice R. Ramessar, the process appeared to favour the investor. Mining officials from the company were there when ostensibly all that was needed was for the EPA to gauge the views of the residents. Moreover, there were clear attempts by some to play up the benefits of the project to residents of the area.
The process set out under the law must be allowed to operate. We await the conduct of an EIA that takes account of the extensive environmental concerns embedded within the project and the early dissemination of this report to the residents and their representatives. Moreover, we maintain that no project of this type should be given the green light if it is clear that the capacity to monitor magisterially both at the level of the EPA and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission is absent.
