In the wake of EU, United States bans…

BY Staff
Published: November 7, 2008 in Business

Guyana must shift to mercury-free gold mining

Guyana’s gold mining sector could find it difficult to maintain its current levels of production unless the industry pursues mercury-free options in the wake of the decisions by the European Community and the United States to ban mercury exports according to a report released by the secretariat of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) recently. But the Report says that the WWF is confident that the mercury-free exploitation of the country’s gold resources can be achieved without compromising the contribution of gold to the country’s economy.

Open flame burning of mercury amalgam to recover gold

And according to the report the local gold mining sector needs to start investigating alternatives to mercury use in the gold production process and the training of miners in those alternative processes. The Report also calls on government to provide incentives to miners who are prepared to invest in mercury-free technologies.

A ban on mercury exports from the 27-nation EU bloc implemented on September 25th last will come into force in March 2011 while a similar mercury export ban effected on October 19th by President George Bush under legislation sponsored by Democratic Party President-elect Barack Obama will come into effect on January 1, 2013.

According to the WWF Report the ban on mercury exports by the EU and the United States which, collectively, represent by far the world’s largest suppliers of the commodity will see a significant price rise from the present $5,000 per kg at the initiation of the export ban and will continue to rise as mercury becomes scarcer.

Although sources in the local gold mining sector have told Stabroek Business that the process requires relatively small quantities of mercury. It is acknowledged that vastly reduced access to mercury could significantly affect gold output and have a knock-on effect on the economy.
Last year production in the local mining sector yielded 246,199 ounces of gold valued at $32.8 billion and accounted for 6.2 per cent of Guyana’s Gross Domestic Product. According to the WWF Report, gold mining provides direct employment for around 11,200 persons and additional indirect employment for more than 30,000 additional persons.

Last year, the value of gold exports to the United States was estimated at US$158.2m, equivalent to 38.3 per cent of all mining exports.
Noting that all of the gold produced locally was done using mercury the Report said that a scarcity in mercury supply will make the cost of local gold production more expensive since apart from the fact that local miners are not familiar with those techniques, these require additional capital investment and competent technical skills if they are to be efficient.

Meanwhile the WWF has announced that it has initiated a 6-day November 16 – 21 visit to French Guiana for four representatives from the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) to witness the practice of mercury-free gold mining methods. The use of mercury in the mining of gold in French Guiana was banned in 2006.

Comments

About Comments

The Comments section of this website is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness.

We reserve the right to edit/delete comments which contain attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity, and gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity.

Curious about the little images next to each commenter's name ? Go here and sign up using the same email address you used to register for Stabroeknews.com then upload your image and confirm it.

2 Comments

Joe Coxall says:

November 7, 2008 at 6:09 am

If mercury is such a dangerous element, then stop producing it, close down all factories that make it, end of problem.

But that is not what they are after, they are after the control of gold. Mercury will now become an illegal product, just like cocaine, therefore its price will increase according to demand. Who benefit from this increase, the mercury producers, thats who, but unlike cocaine, they do not get a black eye for producing it, we get the blackeye for using it.

Columbia produces cocaine, America is their biggest customer, Columbia gets the badname. America and Europe produces mercury, many poor gold producing countries need it, but they will now give us another bad name. They will now come up with a pollution index and label us accordingly.

Their ultimate goal is to impose a carbon tax, on the entire world, that way they get a cut back on all our production and services, no matter what it is.

They tell us that these measures are out of concern for the environment, I say that they do not gave a darn about regional peoples or their jungle environment, they are setting up a system not to protect anything, the system will say, ok if we determine that you are harming the environment, we will impose a tax and tariff on you.

Just look at the brilliant idea Mayor boom burg came up with to stop smoking, he raises the tax, what happened as a result, was a cigarette blackmarket underground that was rivaling the drug trade in profitability. So he concluded, ok that did not get you folks to stop smoking, I’ll just raise it again.Still has not solved the smoking problem, but sure made the city a lot richer.

Then they tell us, hey that’s green thinking, again I say BS that is just another one of their smart schemes, by another rich incompetent bureaucrat, who has done nothing for NY except raise taxes on everything he could possibly think of, but because he is super rich, we conclude that whatever he does is smart, and good for NY.

In similar fashion this entire mercury ban and eco preservation plans, are another smart way they will use to exploit us further to their benefit, unless our leaders are intelligent enough to insist that the penalties should be the other way around, meaning the more mercury that is found in use in our country, the more the producers must pay us as a fine. The more of the invironment we find necessary to destroy, the more we need to be rewarded.

Joe.

Reply
- Dayan says:
  
  November 7, 2008 at 9:46 pm
  
  Well said Joe, I always wondered why these schemes are allowed to exist in the reverse manner that they do. What we need is assertive leaders to stand up to these companies that produce all the products that deemed to be destructive. Is difficult for me not to believe that the governments are all in it. Unfortunately the profits seems to be regarded highly over the peoples of the land. Thanks for sharing your articulate thoughts, I hope it has many readers.