Uranium EIA exemption sparks fresh challenge

Oct 07, 2026 News

---

—as 15 citizens, three organisations  demand halt to Kurupung exploration

(Kaieteur News) – The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to exempt uranium exploration activities at the Kurupung Uranium Project in Region Seven from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is facing a fresh challenge, with 15 individuals and three organisations formally appealing the decision and calling for the immediate suspension of all activities at the site.

According to a letter dispatched to the Chairman of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB), by Danuta Radzik on behalf of 15 individuals and three organisations. Citing an August 26th notice published by EPA exempting Lia (Guyana) Inc. from an EIA for a mineral exploration project at the Kurupung Uranium Project the signatories questioned the grounds EPA listed for its exemption, that the agency’s decision violates the section of the Environmental Act, the lack of information on the company’s track record, lack of consultation with indigenous communities, the public, health and environmental risk concerns as well as questioning the agency’s capacity to monitor such project and Guyana lacking specific regulations for uranium exploration or mining.

Canada-based firm U92 Energy Corp. owns the Kurupung Uranium Project through its wholly owned subsidiary, Lia (Guyana). The project area spans approximately 92.2 square kilometres and carries a historical resource estimate of 20.6 million pounds of uranium.

EPA has cleared U92 to conduct soil sampling and approximately 5,000 metres of diamond drilling from about 30 drill platforms. The company can also conduct limited access-track works, rehabilitation of approximately 12 kilometres of an existing access road, a temporary exploration camp and secure drill-core storage.

The first ground listed in the appeal against the EPA’s decision contends that the agency’s decision to exempt the exploration project from an EIA and its identifying reasons for its decision stating that the project’s impacts is small, temporary and manageable, “clearly violates” the Environmental Protection Act, Part IV which sets out very clearly projects requiring EIAs.

Notably, EPA in its notice explained that following the review of the application, it determined that the proposed exploration activities are “not likely to significantly affect the environment” and are therefore exempt from the requirement to conduct an EIA. The agency explained that the its decision was based on several factors, including that the project is limited to exploration and does not involve mining or mineral processing. Another factor stated is that land disturbance will be localised and mainly confined to small drill pads, access routes and temporary facilities.

However, the letter pointed to Part IV of the EP Act which states that project requiring EIAs includes those involving activities like mineral extraction, long-term liquid storage and wastewater treatment, which they argued the exploration project involves all three the aforementioned.

Another point raised is that the EP Act requires EIAs for the construction of roads, as the project’s infrastructure works include construction and upgrading of access roads to the project site.

“We also object to the EPA’s practice of exempting projects from EIAs, arguing that such exemptions limit scrutiny, inhibit public participation, and weaken environmental oversight,” the letter stated, outlining that EPA is mandated to ensure environmental risks are assessed before project authorization or permitting.

Concerns was also raised about transparency, pointing to the narrow interpretation of statutory publication requirements, which result in a single newspaper notice and limited time for stakeholders to object arguing that it does not meet the spirit of public participation envisioned by Environmental Protection Act.

Other grounds outlined in the letter were centered on environmental and health risks of uranium exploration and environmental impacts of uranium mining.

As it relates to the risk of uranium exploration, the letter noted that extracting and handling drill cores containing radioactive materials introduces localized environmental and safety hazards including through groundwater contamination, surface contamination and waste, which if left exposed to wind and rain, radioactive dust can spread, or rainwater runoff can wash contaminants into nearby soil and streams.

Notably, while the letter outlined several points on environmental risks associated with environmental impacts of uranium mining – it should be noted that EPA’s exemption for an EIA the EPA’s decision to exempt the exploration from an EIA does not constitute approval of commercial mining, ore extraction or processing, mine construction, or the establishment of radioactive tailing facilities – as it is only for exploration activities at the uranium project.

Another ground stated in the letter is that while the EPA in its notice said that the project is limited to exploration, they outlined safety guidelines by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on uranium mining, which require that comprehensive management systems be in place covering the entire lifecycle —from exploration to mining, processing, and closure.

Other grounds raised includes the lack of consultation by EPA, the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), Lia Guyana or U92 Energy to engage with the Indigenous First Nation communities living in the Mazaruni/ Kurupung area to recognize and uphold Free Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) guidelines.

They further questioned the company’s experience, noting that Lia (Guyana) Inc. was purchased from its holding company Lia Industries Pte. Ltd incorporated in Singapore by U92 Energy Corp a Canadian company established in 2024. “This company has no track record or involvement in any form of mining far less uranium mining anywhere in the world. It appears that U92 Energy was founded specifically for this project which raises serious red flags due to its lack of experience in this the most environmentally challenging type of mining,” it was stated.

Further, they argued that Guyana has no specific regulations for uranium exploration or mining, adding that EPA lacks necessary expertise on many environmental matters including on radiation and uranium mining. The letter outlines that there is nothing to assure the Indigenous First Nations in the Mazaruni/ Kurupung area or the Guyanese public, that the EPA has acquired the necessary expertise to monitor or regulate this or any project on uranium exploration or mining.

Additionally, the letter also highlight that Guyana’s Radiation Safety and Security Act (RSSA), which has designated the Minister of Health with responsibility for the RSSA is still to appoint an independent RSSA Board. “This Board does not appear to be fully operational according to the Act, neither have suitably qualified inspectors based on established qualifications and training requirements been appointed as far as we know,” it was stated.

Other points raised point to information revealed in the project summary, including the extensive period of uranium exploration, which will run for three years until April 18, 2027, and can be extended to five years.

The signatories outlined that the exploration period had already commenced before the public notice was issued on August 26, 2026, raising questions about the temporary timeframe of the project. “Let us remember that full environmental permits for mining activities are by law limited to a 5-year period,” it was stated.

It was also outlined that the exploration activities will require a full working camp and not just drill sites. Pointing to plans which include housing, a diesel generator, drum fuel storage on a concrete slab, a water well with treatment tanks, and septic tanks that drain into the soil, noting that the scale does not fit the EPA’s description of the impacts as minor and temporary.

Another point raised was in relation to the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which is supposed to monitor and manage fuel, waste, drill fluids and uranium-bearing core samples. The letter notes that the EMP is nowhere to be found on the EPA website, has not been shared with the general public and, as such, cannot be scrutinised.

Further, it was outlined that the concept of EMPs is nowhere to be found in Guyana’s Environmental Act. “In extractive mining projects an EMP usually is dependent on the findings of an EIA for operational rules and accountability. But here there is no EIA so how there can be an EMP, what would this be based upon. This is putting the cart before the horse,” they argued.

Another concern listed was in relation to the 88,000 metres of drill core, equivalent to 54 miles, from prior drilling. Pointing to information in the project summary, the signatories outlined concerns about how badly these core drill samples were stored.

“So we have serious concerns that these may have already leached into the surrounding areas and caused serious environmental risks to flora, fauna, waterways including air dispersion which could have affected communities and people using this airstrip over a period of many years,” it was noted.

“…as concerned Guyanese, environmental defenders, and Indigenous First Nations demand the immediate suspension of all aspects of uranium exploration and mining by Lia (Guyana) Inc. Mineral Exploration Project– Kurupung Project until full disclosure, public information, environmental regulations and necessary expertise is made available to all Guyanese,” the letter concludes.

The letter was signed by: Abbyssinian Carto,  Bonita Harris, Charlene Wilkinson, Desmond Ali, Frederick Collins, Joel Simpson, Jeremy Peretz, Kamini Bulkan, Ludex Mcdonald, Neville Trotz, Norris Witter, Raphael Singh, Vanda Radzik, Vidyaratha Kissoon, Greenheart Movement, Organization for the Victory of the People (OVP) and Red Thread.

---

---