(Kaieteur News) – Four organisations and 40 individuals, including former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Dr. Vincent Adams, have appealed the agency’s decision to exempt U92 Energy Corp.’s proposed uranium exploration activities at the Kurupung project in Region Seven from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The Canada-based firm 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.
Former Head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dr. Vincent Adams
In a letter dated 25th September and emailed to the Chairman of the Environmental Assessment Board, the signatories formally lodged the appeal and expressed concern over a public notice published by the EPA on 26th August, announcing that the proposed exploration activities at the uranium project are “not likely to significantly affect the environment” and are therefore exempt from the requirement to conduct an EIA.
The letter underscored concerns about the contamination of air, land and waterways by toxic radioactive particles and waste; the lack of consultation with nearby Indigenous communities; the company’s experience; and the waste left behind by previous companies that operated the project.
The signatories stated that they understand that exploration/prospecting activities are different from mining/extraction and processing, and took note that 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.
However, they outlined several points from the notice published by the EPA, particularly the part which states, “…waste and spills are expected to be temporary, reversible and capable of being effectively managed”; “Drill holes and disturbed areas will be progressively sealed, stabilised and rehabilitated.”; and “Fuel, waste, drill fluids and uranium-bearing core and samples will be securely contained, monitored and managed in accordance with an EPA-approved Environmental Management Plan and permit conditions, including radiation-safety requirements.”
Map showing the location of the boundary of the two PLs.
They demanded to know all details of the Environmental Management Plans (EMP) and what data convinced the Agency that spills and waste are expected to be temporary, reversible and capable of being effectively managed.
“We know that uranium is radioactive and remains in the environment for billions of years- there is absolutely nothing temporary about this substance! Likewise, what data convinced the Agency that the company wishing to engage in these activities- U92 Energy Corp- is capable of “effectively managing” any spill, has the expertise to seal, stabilise, and rehabilitate drill holes, and maintain radiation safety requirements?” they added.
Another point of objection was centred around U92’s experience, with the signatories outlining that the company was founded just two years ago, in 2024, and has no previous documented experience conducting uranium exploration/prospecting.
Further registering their objection to the EPA’s decision for the project, the signatories also noted that the Agency did not share its decision about the non-EIA for the project by publishing its decision in at least one daily newspaper, in accordance with Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act.
They explained that the EPA’s EIA decision must be published in at least one daily newspaper before the issuance of an EMP.
“It appears that the opposite was done in this case, in violation of Guyana’s laws – with the public being notified in the Agency’s no-EIA Notice that an EMP had already been approved. This premature decision is not only backwards and contrary to the EPA Act, and also clearly and disturbingly shows a clear bias on the part of the Agency against complying with the law and due process,” the signatories said.
Further, the signatories explained that it is their understanding that uranium exploration/prospecting requires drilling into soil and rocks, which is a process which will release radioactive particles into the air that can be inhaled and easily spread by wind, water, animals, vehicles, clothing, and shoes of workers.
As such, they expressed concern about the health and safety of community members who may be directly involved in these activities, as well as those who may accidentally come into contact with cancer-causing radioactive materials.
“We are also concerned about the impact of these activities on the plants and animals in the project area that may also accidentally become exposed to these dangerous substances and then affect human health if/when they are touched and/or eaten,” it was also stated.
Another objection to the EPA’s decision was on the grounds that the nearby Kurupung River is connected to the Mazaruni and Essequibo River, two systems which are interconnected parts of a larger watershed upon which thousands of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Guyanese depend.
“If spills and waste from uranium exploration gets into these nearby waterways, a huge number of people, as well as fish and other living things in these rivers would be seriously harmed. Also, as we have seen from previous uranium exploration activities at/around Kurupung, such activities do indeed generate massive quantities of radioactively contaminated cores and waste material and do cause significant long-term damage to the air, soil, vegetation, ground and surface water,” they added.
To this end, the signatories made reference to information from the Project Summary published by the EPA. The information highlighted by the signatories is that previous uranium exploration in this area generated a huge amount (54 miles worth) of radioactively contaminated core material, which remains improperly and unsafely stored at the nearby Aricheng airstrip without any shielding or radioactive signage, violating all international radiation safety standards and leaving the nearby community of people, animals, land, and water resources exposed to dangerous cancer-causing radioactivity for over a decade and a half.
The signatories underscored that while the material was produced by a previous company and not Lia (Guyana), they argued that future uranium exploration activities such as what is currently proposed will undoubtedly add to the huge quantities of radioactive core material that already exists.
Another ground is that the material was abandoned for decades without the nearby community’s knowledge. This, they said, demonstrates clear disregard for their lives and wellbeing and typifies the disrespectful manner by which Indigenous Guyanese in particular have been and continue to be treated not only by foreign companies but sadly, also by the regulatory authorities of Guyana.
Moreover, it was also highlighted that while the prospecting licences for this proposed project are for lands governed by the State of Guyana, there are multiple Indigenous communities in the Upper and Middle Mazaruni region whose members have traditionally occupied the area for generations, and whose cultural and spiritual traditions are tied to this land.
It was further stated that the Kapong and Pemon Indigenous Guyanese have long rejected uranium mining activities on their lands.
The signatories noted that there was a total lack of prior consultation with the residents of these communities, most of whom only became aware of the proposed project after seeing media reports a few months ago.
“This is a crystal clear violation of both the Environmental Protection Act and the Amerindian Act which guarantee all Guyanese the right to a healthy environment and the right to meaningfully participate in decisions that affect their lives and environment,” they noted.
The signatories stressed that the non-consultation with nearby Indigenous communities is sufficient reason to stop this project.
They said until these communities have been consulted, given the opportunity to ask questions, fully understand the risks related to this project, and provide their free, prior, and informed consent for uranium exploration and all other related activities that may negatively affect their lives and livelihoods, there should be no permission given to Lia (Guyana) Inc/U92 Energy Corp for any such prospecting activities.
“For these many reasons, we- the undersigned Indigenous residents of Region 7 and elsewhere, along with other environmental defenders and concerned Guyanese- reject and appeal the EPA’s no-EIA decision granted to this project,” the letter concluded.
The letter was signed by Dr. Vincent Adams, Kent Andrez, Salima Bacchus Hinds, Nigel Butler, Dawn Charlie, Dr. Shanya Cordis, Tesom Cornelius, Marvalita Edwards, Daphney George, Dr. Laura George, Guyana Organization of Indigenous People, Keran Hastings, Clyde Henry, Hrithik Henry, Karisma Henry, Sasha Henry, Shavira Henry, Troy Henry, Wanda Henry, Mark Jacobs, Colin Klautky, Kelman Krammer, Goretti Lewis, Alma Marshall-Toshao, Ludex McDonald, Elton McRae, Sherlina Nageer, Oil & Gas Governance Network (OGGN), Organization for the Victory of the People (OVP), Nelsonia Persaud, Vanda Radzik, Roweena Ramlall, Cheland Reuben, Sherwin Reuben, Yanisa Reuben, Irene Roland, James Stanley, The Greenheart Movement, Shane Thomas, Ram Toney, Marietta Walker, Joyce Williams, Nelvie Williams and Dugan Wilson.
Source: Kaieteur News
