Minister for grilling over New River survey grant

-opposition unmoved by answers so far

The survey permission in the ecologically fragile south east of Guyana granted by Minister Robert Persaud and which could lead to mining of a range of minerals is not the customary way in which such applications are handled and this is likely to lead to a barrage of questions from the opposition and also over answers the minister had given to a parliamentary committee.

For the third day running, Persaud and his ministry sought to defend his decision to grant permission to Muri Brasil Ventures Inc for mineral surveying in the sensitive New River Triangle area but opposition MPs who had posed questions to him on November 27 on this matter are unmoved.

A major concern is a clause in the infrequently used Permission for Geolo-gical and Geophysical Surveys (PGGS)  which compels the issuance of a maximum of 18 prospecting licences to the company for a variety of minerals in a part of the country which all sides had appeared to agree would not be opened up for mining.

“This is not a research company or a university where a defence can be had saying that they are undertaking studies… we are talking about a company, a former mining company at that …you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that the PGGS  was given as the loophole so that the prospecting licences will come,” a source familiar with the issue told Stabroek News yesterday.

Stabroek News has learnt that the Directors of Muri Brasil Ventures Inc., which has an office at 88 Barrack Street, Kingston, are Dean Hassan and Yucatan Coutinho Reis. Hassan had previously been a part of North American Resources Inc, which also had an office at the same Kingston address.

Under the PGGS, signed  in November last year, Persaud granted the company the exclusive right to occupy the area and conduct geological and geophysical surveys for rare earth elements, bauxite, limestone, nephelene, syenite, gold, diamonds and granite stones for a period of 36 months from November 7, 2012.

The PGGS states that for the permission the company must pay US$25,000 up front and for the second 12 months a fee of US$30,000 must be paid.

The key clause of the PGGS also provided that anytime during the duration of the permission, Muri Brasil Ventures Inc shall have the right to apply to the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) for, and shall be granted a maximum of 18 prospecting licences once it satisfies the requirements of the work programme for the geological and geophysical survey and once satisfactory proof has been furnished to the Minister of financial resources and technical capabilities to carry out its work programme.  These would be straight forward benchmarks, observers say. It said too that the GGMC shall treat such applications on “a priority basis.”

Observers continue to question the motive behind the granting of permission for surveying, with many opining that it was just a circuitous route utilised to facilitate future mining of minerals.  Stabroek News was reliably informed that the survey agreement with Muri Brasil Ventures Inc is the first of its kind granted here.  Since strategically vital rare earth elements are also involved, observers say it called into question what was the policy of the government on this area and if any and every company should be allowed to survey for them, let alone explore for them.

Permissions for Geological and Geophysical Surveying are strictly within the domain of the minister. According to the Mining Act, “the Minister may permit any person to carry on geological, geophysical and other surveys and investigations in Guyana or any part of it which in his opinion are relevant for the prospecting for, or mining of, any mineral, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Minister and the applicant for the permission.”

As a result, the GGMC has no hand in the agreement with Muri Brasil Ventures Inc and if the agreement is to be scrapped it has to be done solely by Persaud.

The question remains as to why the application by Muri Brasil Ventures was not handled by way of a prospecting licence which would have come under the purview of the GGMC.

‘Any activity’

Persaud’s decision to grant the PGGS and his failure to disclose it during his recent appearance before the National’s Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee, has come in for criticism from the parliamentary opposition and APNU MP Joseph Harmon has said the minister should resign or be fired.

However, Persaud yesterday wrote Committee Chairman Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine about his November 27, 2013 presentation before the committee, during which Harmon asked him whether mining leases were issued for lands in the area of the New River Triangle or in the contiguous area.

In light of news reports where concerns were voiced about the accuracy of his statements during his presentation, he included a transcript of the questioning and the answers he provided in an attempt to show that he did not mislead or lie to the committee.

“I am advised by the Manager of the Land Management Administration Section of the GGMC that no mining permit licenses or any permission be given for mining in the area you have outlined. I want to make that categorical. What I do know and I am also (to)  be advised by the GGMC is that there have been applications for persons to engage and these applications are not being considered at this point in time until and unless we so have a policy direction of encouraging and allowing mining. The position of the government at this point in time is not to permit mining in that specific area as you have so highlighted,” he is quoted as saying in the transcript provided by Parliament Office.

Harmon also asked whether there was any permission issued “or anything for any activity other than mining,” including forestry or forestry concessions, in the area.

“I am advised by the technical officer…. I am told by the staff that there is no permitted forestry operation in that particular area,” Persaud said in response.

Observers say that given what he knew about Muri Brasil and the exploration licences’ clause he should have disclosed this to the parliamentary committee. No information was ever released by Persaud or his ministry on this PGGS prior to Tuesday’s report in Stabroek News.

Harmon has said he asked Persaud in the committee whether any activity was taking place in the south east of Guyana and he had said no. He yesterday stressed that Persaud’s permission to the company was arbitrary and said that given the sensitive nature of the area’s ecology and its concomitant importance, there should be no contemplation of any activity there in the first place.

Roopnaraine yesterday told Stabroek News that he received a copy of the letter from Persaud and would be analysing it during the course of last night.

Speaking of behalf of the coalition,  Roopnaraine said that while he was certain that questions will be posed to Persaud on the issue at a parliamentary level, APNU was still mulling whether it will be seeking oral or written responses. He said that the preference is to table questions for written responses since they hold ministers to their words in black and white and are also simpler for referencing.

The AFC also signaled that it will be seeking clarity through the National Assembly on the PGGS. “First of all, we would like him to answer to the National Assembly any questions on the matter… we don’t know enough as yet,” AFC executive member Dominic Gaskin told Stabroek News.

Meanwhile, Persaud also submitted to Roopnaraine a definition of the PGGS, which says that tenure under such agreements are exclusively for exploration as defined in the Mining Act and does not include mining, that is, the excavation of land for the extraction of minerals. It was noted that Prospecting Licences contemplate a much more intensive exploration programme, which could include drilling, trenching, etc over a focused area. It was further acknowledged that while certain exploration activities normally catered for under the Prospecting Licence framework could be conducted as part of a PGGS exploration programme, this has not been “typical.”

 Parabara

The November 27 questioning of Persaud by the Natural Resources Committee had stemmed from reports in the media about a mining-related road in Parabara in the south of Guyana and radiating to the south eastern part of the country. Persaud’s ministry had been pressed to answer this and had said this road had been in place since 2010. Other persons however pointed out via this newspaper that the 2010 road was not the one being complained about but another one. This matter has not been further commented on by the Natural Resources Ministry.