Dear Editor,
I would like to respond regarding the debate surrounding the Permission for Geological and Geophysical Survey (PGGS) recently granted to Muri Brasil Ventures, Inc. Regardless of whether the language in the contract constituted a guarantee or not in reference to a prospecting licence (PL), I do not believe there was any intent by Mr Robert Persaud, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment, to subvert due process and instead engage in some underhanded arrangement with the company. It must be noted that this is not the first time such a PGGS permission was issued with similar wording. In fact, Pharsalus, Inc, was granted a PGGS permission in 2007 by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, which was recorded by then GGMC Commissioner William Woolford. This permission contained similar language and included this clause: “during the duration of the permission, the Permittee shall have the right to apply to the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission for, and shall be granted, a maximum of twenty (20) Prospecting Licences for radioactive minerals and rear earth elements.” Again, in this instance, similar conditions had to be satisfied in order to certify approval of the licences.
Moreover, the conditions set out in the Muri Brazil PGGS contract, which will pave the way for the granting of a maximum of 18 PLs, are in line with the requirements of the Mining Act that spells out issuances of such a licence. The Mining Act, Article 30, Chapter 2, sets out that a PL shall be granted if the applicant can demonstrate adequate financial and technical expertise to carry out an effective prospecting operation and can show that it has an adequate prospecting programme or operational plan.
I do not envision any issue meriting serious concern with the granting of such a PL if the company were to apply to the GGMC and meet all the requisite criteria for such licences. The only issue that should be addressed is if the government is willing to revise its current policy of not permitting mining in the specified area. Also, the government will have to ensure that if it indeed changes its policy on mining in the area, then it should take into consideration commitments related to the Guyana-Norway agreement on Reducing Emissions from Defore-station and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and how funding from that arrangement can be affected if mining in the specified area negatively affects control of Guyana’s total forest degradation levels. The security issue is a non-starter, I believe. The land area belongs to Guyana and we should not be too overly concerned with Suriname’s reaction, lest we think that the nation has a legitimate claim. This raises another issue for our government to consider, and that is to find a diplomatic solution in resolving the disputed territorial claim made by Suriname.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling