Dear Editor,
It has been with great consternation that I have been reading the past week’s Stabroek News and now the Kaieteur News in relation to the utterings over the award of a Permission of Geological and Geophysical Survey (PGSS) in the south of Guyana to the Guyanese company Muri Brasil Ventures Inc. I am puzzled as to the motive behind all the negative light in which this potentially large scale investment is being cast. This is a survey which holds great promise for Guyana, yet the motives of many of the objectors such as the Guyana Human Rights Association, A Partnership for National Unity’s Joseph Harmon and several political pundits remain, at the best, unknown.
I am yet to comprehend what it is that they want, despite reading all of the complaints, accusations and demands. Some I have seen call for the resignation of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources Robert Persaud, the rescinding of the PGSS, a separation of ministerial duties and protection of the environment. I have also noticed that this matter only came to the fore when there was a discussion about an illegal road being built by a Brazilian in the Parabara area. For the record, the builders of that road and Muri Brasil Ventures Inc are not connected, nor is Muri involved in any road building.
So far all of the articles seem to hint and make the assumption that there is some level of corruption involved. However, to date, I have not heard anyone stating that the agreement signed between the minister and the company is illegal. In my humble opinion, once it is a legal agreement it must be honoured. It is time that the government state this fact regardless of the reasons given by some persons who feel, that this legal agreement, is not in the best interest of Guyana. I would like to state why legal binding agreements must be honoured. I refer to two more popular cases from our recent history. 1) The agreement with the GT&T which created a “monopoly” and 2) the Omai mine agreement, both of these agreements were questioned by all and sundry and attempts were made to rescind them. The GT&T issue is still ongoing and I will not comment.
Following the change of government in 1992 there was an official investigation and inquiry into the Omai agreement, led by Dr Maurice Odle. The determination was that the agreement was fully compliant with the law.
On a historical note, this is not the first time the area in question is being studied vis-à-vis research activities to determine the type of minerals. Were there any previous studies in this area? The answer is yes. Several decades ago studies were done by:
1. the United Nations Revolving Fund Programme whose findings are a matter of public record;
2. the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) headed by Geologist Chris Barron in the late 70s;
3. Mr Nestor of GGMC, under the stewardship of Commissioner William Woolford – these findings should also be public knowledge;
4. a Guyana/Brazil team over the Muri area, I am not aware if these findings have been made available to the public.
The above is proof that studies for minerals in this area were conducted by government over its territory. The only difference today, is that the studies are being carried out by a private firm. So why all the fuss about this study?
There are many statements being placed for public consumption that are at best most misleading. The first is that of the map purporting to show mining on the borders. Any preliminary investigation would show that there is a definitive area on all Guyana’s borders in which mining can and cannot be conducted. This is the law of the land.
The second bit of information which states that this agreement is a “sell-out” and that 2.2 million acres (approximately 4% of Guyana) has been granted to this company is ingenious in its ambiguity and designed to arouse the patriotism of Guyanese citizens. The fact however remains that the major beneficiary of this research, which would involve a foreign investment of tens of millions of US dollars, is Guyana. PGSS agreements have been implemented simply because the GGMC does not have the technical or financial resources to do this type of research. Yes, there is an agreement that after a few years Muri will have the option to apply for prospecting licences, however what is not stated is these licences will not be chosen from the 2.2 million acres being researched. As with all previous agreements (I have not seen the Muri agreement) areas have to be released by the companies each year as per a schedule that allows for approximately 50% in the first year and 25% in the second year and so on. From what I understand, this agreement will see at least a 30% release of the first year. So exactly how many acres are being given in the form of prospecting licences? Based on what has been the precedent, the average prospecting licence is 12,000 acres. It means that the acreage to be prospected could be around 216,000 acres. Needless to say if after years of prospecting one decides to apply for mining licence, the maximum acres is 20,000 acres. I am also aware that there have been applications by local miners to do prospecting in the area and I recall the minister stating that he has not approved any prospecting licences in the area, only a PGSS.
As a matter of policy, the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association has always stated that all applications must be accepted by the GGMC and following the proper checks and research, the applicant must be informed if he can or cannot be issued a permission and reasons must be given. It is sad to see that there has been no comment or response from the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission or its board on this matter. The Private Sector Commission, whose current chairman was the Chairman of GGMC, has remained largely silent on this issue which threatens to drive away, not only this, but future foreign investment into Guyana.
In conclusion, Guyanese are aware of the claims by the Venezuelan Government in the Essequibo which has, and will continue to restrict large-scale development such as the Upper Mazaruni Hydro Development Project and the Beal Space Project. We are also aware about the claims by Suriname which is apparently also restricting development in the New River Triangle Area. Personally, I can understand where these foreign countries are coming from but it is totally incomprehensible to me why our own people (Guyanese) are against the development of Guyana for the benefit of all Guyanese.
Yours faithfully,
Edward Shields
Fmr. Director of GGMC
Retired Executive Director GGDMA
