GGMC ‘advised against’ New River Triangle exploration – Official

Dec 20, 2013 News

---

 

By Zena Henry
Executives of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) have stated that support for exploration in the New River Triangle area was not given, since the agency had advised the Natural Resources Ministry against activities to be conducted there.
A GGMC official, who requested anonymity, said that the permission for the Muri Brazil Permission for Geological and Geophysical Survey (PGGS) came as a “ministerial order” by which the agency abided. The official, without going into detail, emphasized however that the Commission advised against the survey.
It was stressed that the GGMC’s advice on the issue was just that, “advice”, since the minister could take it upon himself, based on the power his office to instruct that permission be granted for the go-ahead of activities.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment in a full page advertisement discredited “misinformation and unsubstantiated remarks” regarding the Permission for Geological and Geophysical Survey occurring in the controversial New River Triangle, Region One.
Members of the Opposition parties have expressed their non-support for the activities given the “secretive” nature in which the Natural Resource’s Ministry is operating. Alliance for Change (AFC) Leader Khemraj Ramjattan, with the support of Vice Chairman Moses Nagamootoo, called for the withdrawal of Muri’s PGGS stating “non- transparency from government on the development of the project.”
The Natural Resource Ministry noted however that ‘expressions of interest,’ regarding the Region One exploration was indeed conducted in March of 2012. The Ministry clarified further that no automatic approval of prospecting licences will be granted to Muri Brazil since the company like any PGGS holder, “could expect to have an option to apply for Prospecting Licences.”
The Ministry’s advertisement said that 2.2 million acres of rights was not granted to the company since the area is for the purpose of aerial survey. The Guyana Gold and Diamond Association (GGDMA) like other stakeholders have registered their support for the Muri exploration stating that there was nothing “sinister about the issuance of the Muri PGGS.”
“As the major stakeholder group of the gold and diamond mining sector in Guyana, the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) has been following the ongoing debate regarding the issuance of a Permission of a Geological and Geophysical Survey (PGGS) issued to Muri Brazil Ventures Inc.”
The GGDMA and its executive members said that it analyzed the facts of the matter and notes the pronouncements by a media house and other public officials, without relevant checks with Muri Brazil Ventures Inc to verify the information.
It was stated that the media houses and other officials, “need to get their facts right about the operation of the gold mining sector and the Mining Act/Regulations, and not to make uninformed statements, attacking agreements legally entered into between Government and other parties.”
“Constant aerial surveys and exploration activities are necessary to develop the mining industry, and the issuing of a PGGS is a methodology utilized to get mineral information over large areas.
Further, the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association, and its Executive Members remain unmoved by the statements published in the press, and would like to state based upon the facts known/provided that there is nothing sinister about the issuance of a PGGS to Muri Brazil Venture Inc.”
Retired GGMC Commissioner William Woolford in an invited comment told Kaieteur News that in relation to mining in the southern part of the country, there was concern over the threats that small foreign miners posed to the area. He opined that heads could be bumping since as it remains, local miners do not have access to the area, yet a survey is being conducted by a foreign group.
It is still to be stated why local mining operators were never allowed to conduct activities in the southern part of the region. Woolford explained that after recognizance exploration (PGGS), Muri Company gets the right for the prospective licences, providing that the PGGS is satisfied; “which is reasonable,” he opined. This prospective licence -following further stringent requirements- provides for the mining licence which would entail a technical and economic report with environmental impact, social security etc.
It was noted further that several prominent persons would have applied to conduct activities in the southern region of the country and either their application was not processed or accepted. It was noted further that these persons would not have been allowed for activities in the other parts of the area, but a foreign company would have received permission for a PGGS in a most “sensitive” location.
It was further related to this paper that surveys would have been conducted before in the southern part of the region and the area was deemed to have potential for rare minerals.
Retired Chief-of-Staff Edward Collins, also in an invited comment, expressed concerns in terms of the sensitivity of the area, noting that it was a national policy embraced by the Guyana Defence Force that certain activities would not be allowed in the area. He expressed surprise that a foreign entity was allowed to conduct any mining-related works in the area.

 

---

---