THE decision by Muri Brasil Ventures Inc. to scrap its local investment venture in the New River Triangle area continues to attract attention.The most recent is from stakeholders in the private sector which raised concerns over the local investment climate.

When Muri made its announcement, last December 30, it said: “Although the process was legal and transparent, this decision is due to the misinformation, prejudice and hostility to this proposed survey by persons and agencies, which are fostering an adverse investment climate in Guyana.”
Head of the Private Sector Commission (PSC), Mr. Ronald Webster, said it is “disappointing”, particularly since the climate surrounding the project was largely a negative one.
He told the Guyana Chronicle that any such sizeable venture needs support, otherwise it will not risk “throwing away” money.
The company, registered in Guyana under the Companies Act with local shareholders, was granted permission for geographical and geophysical surveys (PGGS) by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC).
President of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI), Mr. Clinton Urling, adding his voice to the issue, said his organisation welcomes all forms of foreign direct investment, especially considering that the Government does not possess the resources to embark on such projects with significant benefits for the Guyanese people.
On a personal note, Urling said: “Investors come every day and for a variety of reasons they explore and make the decision to either go or stay.

CLEAR FACTORS
“The contributing factors that led to Muri’s pullout were clear.”
Former Head of the PSC, Mr. Gerry Gouveia, told the Guyana Chronicle that the “unnecessary negativity” surrounding the undertaking was disappointing.
He declared: “I am speechless. It was a great loss, in terms of investment and I don’t know that the critics understand that investors will not come into an unwelcoming and hostile environment.
“It was not a question of scrutiny, which was clear. This was not exposure of what the investment entailed. It was unnecessary hassling of the investor.”
Gouveia agreed that any prospective investor will walk away under these conditions.
According to him, a climate that does not inspire investor confidence will not only result in the loss of the investment, but has implications for job creation.
“The economy depends on investment, on the private sector for job creation and, if we continue to see such a climate, then we are directly affecting job creation. We will directly contribute to jeopardising the future of our youth,” he emphasised.
Gouveia added that Guyana’s “negaholics” need to re-assess their positions when it comes to massive local investments.
“We have seen this with the hydro (Amaila Falls Hydropower project), with the Marriott and with the Specialty Hospital. There needs to be some changing,” he insisted.
Gouveia reiterated that the circumstances surrounding Muri Brasil’s investment were not of insufficient exposure, rather it was the negative environment.
Former head of the PSC and President of the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association (GMSA), Ramesh Dookhoo, in an invited comment, said: “It is just an exploration permission, but the way it was portrayed in the press is as though the person was being given miner rights.”
He stressed that the company was not given miner rights; rather was given permission to explore.
According to him, if the company wanted to move to another stage of works, additional permission would have been required.
Dookhoo noted that a company Director, Yucatan Reis, is a man of “perfect repute” and is well known by the Guyanese private sector.
“The private sector has found nothing wrong with him over the years,” the GMSA President said.
The project was the feature of controversial debates over the last few weeks.
The PGGS document, signed between the GGMC and Muri Brasil Ventures Inc., was leaked to the press and led to allegations that Natural Resources and Environment, Minister Robert Persaud withheld information, an allegation he has vehemently denied.

SIGNATORIES
The minister was among signatories for the PGGS, which was issued on November 7, 2012, for several types of minerals in the New River area of South-East Berbice.
Muri Brasil Ventures Inc. itself joined the debate, declaring that there was nothing “opaque” about its deal with the Natural Resources Ministry to the PGGS.
In a mid-December statement, the company explained that it applied for the PGGS following an advertisement by the Government.
The company, in clarifying its position, said: “Exploration activities have not commenced because permission is being awaited for the construction of a small airstrip to facilitate the airborne aspect of the survey. Other research activities have taken place.”
The clause within the PGGS that paves the way for the granting of, at least 18 prospecting licences, is the main bone of contention, since the Natural Resources Ministry had indicated that no mining activity was being done in the New River Triangle.
However, Muri Brasil Ventures Inc. pointed out that these kinds of explorations cost millions of United States (U.S.) dollars, which can only be sourced from outside of Guyana.
The company said: “No such investments would be available if the investor is given no assurance that he will be granted prospecting licences. The investor takes a risk. If he or she is not assured of a potential return, investment capital will dry up and so will Guyana’s mining industry.”
It maintained that constant exploration works are essential to accelerate the mining industry. However, before a prospecting licence is issued, a work programme and financial and technical capabilities of a company must be supplied.
“A prospecting licence does not, necessarily, lead to a mining licence, because minerals in commercial quantities may not be available.
“It has been asserted that there is an impropriety inherent in the fact that the PGGS is issued for seven different minerals, rather than a single one.
“The Mining Act permits the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) to issue permits or licences over the same area to different persons for different minerals.
The company said a PGGS is “qualitatively different” from a mining permit.
Meanwhile, amidst the controversy over activity in the New River Triangle area, Muri Brasil Ventures Inc. expressed the hope that there would be no adverse impacts on the PGGS.