Dear Editor,
I refer to your headline ‘Gold rush could be stymied by EU, US mercury crackdown’ in the Stabroek Business of January 20, 2008 and specifically to the statement by your columnist: “The Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) which has spoken out against other environmentally unsound practices in the mining sector has not taken a similarly robust position on the use of mercury in the mining sector.”
For the record, the association’s position has been enunciated at several seminars and meetings, and on television, even as of Wednesday’s programme Miners World broadcast on June 11 on Channel 11 (NCN) at 19:30 hours.

Accepting that your columnist was not aware of our position on the use of mercury, they should have contacted the association to ascertain same before publishing the article.
The association reiterates its position:

1. It is against the mining laws to use mercury for processing; mercury is only legal for the purposes of amalgamation, whereby a retort must be utilized by the miner. This is supported by the association.
2. It is the association which fought for several years to have an approved retort for the mining industry. This project was eventually funded by CIDA via the GENCAPD programme, and these retorts are now available to the industry.

3. Despite general statements on the issue, the association is still awaiting the findings, specific to Guyana, from the several groups GENCAPD, WWF et al, which undertook several studies over the years on the mercury contamination of rivers, its impact on fish, the communities and miners, stating where this was found, and whether or not it is directly linked to the mining industry.
4. That the miners would immediately switch to an alternative, once it can be demonstrated that it can amalgamate the gold produced by the average miner.
Yours faithfully,
Edward Shields
Executive Director
GGDMA