The Uranium Blindspot.Guyana Is Licensing What It Cannot Regulate

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 THE 592 GUARDIAN♦Independent Accountability Journalism♦Governance, Politics & Extractive Industry
 July 2026

The Uranium Blindspot: Guyana Is Licensing What It Cannot Regulate
As U92 Energy Corp. advances drill programmes at the Kurupung uranium project, the government has yet to answer a foundational question: who, in Guyana, can actually tell if something is going wrong?

I. THE WARNING CANNOT BE DISMISSED
Dr. Vincent Adams is not a critic of mining. He is a former head of Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency and a professional who has overseen uranium remediation programmes in the United States — a country that spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars confronting contamination legacies it did not anticipate when licences were first issued. He has chaired international conferences on uranium mining’s environmental footprint, drawing participants from more than sixty countries, including Kazakhstan, one of the world’s largest uranium producers. When Dr. Adams says Guyana does not have what it takes to regulate uranium mining — that the country’s institutions have no clue what they are getting into — he is not raising a theoretical concern.
He is delivering a professional judgment grounded in direct comparative experience. And this government has not answered it.

“Guyana just based on their track record do not have it, they do not understand what it takes to have it, and they have no interest in providing that capacity to take on such an operation. They have no clue what they are getting into. Have no clue whatsoever.” — Dr. Vincent Adams, former EPA Head

That silence is the story. Not because uranium mining is inherently incompatible with Guyana’s development — Dr. Adams himself does not argue that — but because the government has issued licences, approved exploration, and allowed a foreign junior mining company to consolidate a decadeof technical data on Guyanese soil without publicly demonstrating that any regulatory body in this country can independently verify what that company is doing, or will be doing, in the interior of Region Seven.

II. WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LICENSED
The facts on the ground are specific and deserve to be stated precisely. On 19 April 2024, the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission granted Exclusive Prospecting Licences to LIA (Guyana) Inc. — a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore-registered LIA Industries Pte. Ltd., incorporated in Guyana in March 2023, just one month before the licences were issued. Those licences cover not only uranium but other radioactive minerals and rare earth elements across 92.2 square kilometres of Region Seven.
The licences run for three years to 18 April 2027 with the possibility of two additional one-year extensions — meaning this project could remain active and expanding through April 2029 without any new licensing decision by the government.

Adam Clode CEO – U 92 Corp.

Canada-based U92 Energy Corp. has since acquired the complete historical technical and exploration dataset for the Kurupung project, which it describes as carrying a historical resource estimate of 20.6 million pounds of uranium. This is U 92’s only listed project. The company has finalised a commercial agreement for a Phase One 5,000-metre diamond drilling programme and submitted the required environmental application for drill pad preparation. The company’s entire commercial existence rests on this single Guyanese concession.
The GGMC issued licences to an entity incorporated one month before the grant date. It has offered no public account of what due diligence was conducted on LIA Industries’ technical capacity, financial standing, or environmental track record.
The GGMC has offered no public account of what due diligence was conducted on LIA Industries’ technical capacity, financial standing, or environmental track record prior to that April 2024 grant. The Environmental Protection Agency has not published any environmental impact assessment, baseline study, or radiation monitoring protocol for the Kurupung project. The Guyana Nuclear Energy Authority — the body nominally responsible for radiological matters — has not issued a public statement on the project’s regulatory framework. Parliament has not been briefed. The public has not been consulted.

III. THE REGULATORY INDEPENDENCE PROBLEM
Dr. Adams identified the core structural failure with precision. It is not simply that Guyana lacks technical personnel with uranium expertise — though that is true. The deeper problem is the absence of what he calls regulatory independence: the institutional capacity for the government to independently verify what an operator is doing, rather than relying on operator-reported data.
In every sophisticated resource jurisdiction, regulatory independence is the foundational safeguard. It requires trained government scientists and engineers who can read drill logs critically, interpret radiological readings independently, identify anomalies in waste management, and assess water contamination risks without being dependent on the company’s own consultants for their understanding of what is happening. It requires laboratory infrastructure, monitoring networks, and institutional knowledge built over time.
Guyana has none of this for uranium. It does not exist. It is not being built. No minister has announced a timeline for its construction. The 2024 licences were issued into a regulatory vacuum.

The government has adopted a model in oil and gas where operators submit their own environmental compliance data to agencies that lack the independent capacity to contest it. That same model, applied to radioactive mineral extraction, is not a governance shortcut — it is a liability being transferred permanently onto the Guyanese people.
Dr. Adams drew explicit parallels to the oil and gas sector, where Guyana’s environmental governance record is already a subject of documented concern. The Environmental Protection Agency has been criticised by civil society and international observers for its limited capacity to independently audit Exxon, Hess, and CNOOC compliance data. The GGMC’s own audit trail is in a state of chronic disrepair — a matter this outlet documented in its investigation into the Commission’s nine-year audit backlog.

The pattern is institutional, not incidental.
The government has adopted a model in extractive industry governance where operators submit their own environmental compliance data to agencies that lack the independent capacity to contest it. That model, applied to uranium and radioactive mineral extraction, is not a governance shortcut. It is a liability being transferred — permanently and multi-generationally — onto the Guyanese people.
IV. URANIUM IS NOT OIL
There is a reason Dr. Adams specified that countries which engaged in uranium mining decades ago are still spending heavily on contamination and rehabilitation today. Uranium mining’s legacy contamination problem is structural. Tailings — the waste material left after uranium extraction — remain radioactive for thousands of years. Acid mine drainage from uranium operations can travel through groundwater systems in ways that are difficult to predict, harder to reverse, and catastrophic in communities dependent on river water. Radon gas exposure poses chronic health risks to workers and surrounding populations. The Kurupung basin sits in a region of significant biodiversity and within watersheds that feed communities across Cuyuni-Mazaruni.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission maintain distinct, technically staffed regulatory bodies for uranium mining. Australia’s regulatory framework for uranium is administered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act with site-specific environmental management plans, independent auditing, and bonding requirements calibrated to decommissioning costs. Canada — the country of U92’s own domicile — requires that uranium mining operators demonstrate financial assurance for the full cost of remediation before a single shovel breaks ground.
Guyana has no equivalent framework. It has not announced one. It has not committed to a timeline for developing one. It has issued the licences and proceeded.
V. WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIRES
This editorial makes five specific demands of the government of Guyana, each proportionate to the scale of what is being licensed:
1. The GGMC must publish the full due diligence record supporting the April 2024 licence grant to LIA (Guyana) Inc., including financial assurance documentation, technical capacity assessments, and any independent environmental baseline studies conducted prior to the licence decision.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency must publish its environmental compliance framework for radioactive mineral exploration and extraction — if one exists. If it does not exist, the EPA must state that publicly and provide a timeline for its development before drill pad preparation proceeds.
3. The Guyana Nuclear Energy Authority must issue a public statement on its regulatory mandate over the Kurupung project, the staffing and laboratory capacity it currently possesses for uranium oversight, and what additional capacity it requires. This statement must be made before Phase One drilling commences.
4. The Natural Resources Committee of the National Assembly must convene a hearing at which Dr. Adams, the GGMC, the EPA, and the GNEA are required to appear together and answer questions about the regulatory gap on the public record. The opposition has both the right and the obligation to demand this hearing.
5. U92 Energy Corp. must be required to post full remediation bonding — calibrated to worst-case decommissioning costs by an independent environmental engineering firm — before any exploratory drilling occurs. A junior mining company whose sole listed project is this concession cannot be permitted to internalise the upside of resource extraction while externalising the remediation liability onto Guyanese taxpayers and communities.
VI. THE PATTERN THIS GOVERNMENT MUST ACCOUNT FOR
This is not the first time The 592 Guardian has documented the government’s approach of licensing what it cannot regulate. The Wales Gas-to-Energy project was advanced through procurement structures involving Venezuelan-linked entities and an intermediary payroll vehicle before any credible independent environmental audit of the site was published. The GGMC’s own institutional audit trail has not been reconciled in nearly a decade. The GPL-InterEnergy sole-source contract was executed without the competitive tendering that Guyanese law requires. The Guyana EITI validation process — meant to provide at least a minimum standard of extractive industry transparency — was convened under circumstances that this outlet documented firsthand as procedurally compromised.

The uranium sector is being opened in exactly this context. Not as an isolated governance failure but as a continuation of a documented institutional posture: licence first, regulate never, audit retrospectively if at all, and frame any accountability demand as an obstacle to development.

Dr. Adams did not frame his warning as opposition to development. He framed it as a prerequisite for responsible development. That distinction matters. It forecloses the government’s default deflection — that criticism of the regulatory framework is criticism of resource extraction itself. It is not. It is a demand that the government of Guyana demonstrate that it can protect its own people from the consequences of what it is authorising on their behalf.

If the government cannot demonstrate that it possesses the regulatory capacity to independently monitor uranium mining operations at Kurupung, then it has no legal, moral, or constitutional basis to allow those operations to proceed.
If the government cannot demonstrate that it possesses the regulatory capacity to independently monitor uranium mining operations at Kurupung — to detect contamination before it becomes irreversible, to hold an operator accountable for radiological breaches, to protect workers and downstream communities from exposures they will never consent to — then it has no legal, moral, or constitutional basis to allow those operations to proceed.

The burden of proof is on the government. It has not discharged it. The 592 Guardian will continue to report on this matter until it does.
— The Editorial Board, The 592 Guardian
The 592 Guardian | Accountability Journalism for Guyana | www.592guardian.com

THE CONSENT VACUUM:How Guyana is Dismantling Indeginous Land Rights

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592GUARDIAN♦Accountability Journalism forPublic Interest  EDITORIAL

The Consent Vacuum: How Guyana Is Dismantling Indigenous Land Rights One Mining Permit at a Time

Chinese Landing is not an isolated failure. It is the template.

 | The 592 Guardian Editorial Board | June 2026

The government of Guyana has done something remarkable in Chinese Landing, Region 1. It has managed to simultaneously insist that mining restrictions remain “in effect” while actively endorsing the operations of the outside tenure holders those restrictions were meant to constrain. Minister of Natural Resources Vickram Bharrat offered this contradiction without apparent discomfort to Kaieteur News on June 28, 2026, and the Ali administration has made no effort to reconcile it.

This is not semantic confusion. It is policy. And it represents one of the most consequential accountability failures in Guyana’s accelerating petrostate transition: the systematic hollowing of the legal architecture that was supposed to protect Indigenous land rights as extraction expands.

“The villagers are the true, lawful tenure holders of the area by virtue of being the absolute owners of the titled lands.” — Chinese Landing Village Council, June 2026

I.THE STRUCTURE OF THE BETRAYAL

The facts at Chinese Landing are not in dispute, except by the government that is facilitating the breach. The Chinese Landing Carib community holds titled land under Guyana’s Amerindian Act. Section 48 of that Act is explicit: no external miner may operate within titled Indigenous territory without a formal agreement with the resident Village Council. That is not a guideline. It is a statutory precondition.

The Chinese Landing Village Council has confirmed that no such agreement exists. No operators presented themselves to the council. No formal consultation was conducted. The Toshao, Nikita Miller, has confirmed that current operations are active and that the persons managing the worksites — Stephen Vieira, acting under power of attorney for Wayne Vieira — sought signatures from individual residents at the Tassawini airstrip for a proposed labour agreement, bypassing the legally mandated party entirely.

Nine residents and two non-residents reportedly signed. The Village Council — the only body with statutory authority to enter such an agreement — was not involved. Under any reading of Section 48, this means current operations at Chinese Landing are conducted without lawful consent. The Minister’s claim that “legitimate tenure holders” are operating lawfully is a legal fiction built on the deliberate confusion of state-issued mining permits with the community consent those permits do not and cannot replace.

II.THE CCJ RULING AND THE GAP THAT WAS NEVER CLOSED

The government’s position rests on a misreading — or a deliberate misrepresentation — of the Caribbean Court of Justice’s ruling in the Wayne Vieira matter. In 2010, a GGMC officer issued a Cease Work Order against Vieira for operating without a village agreement. The CCJ ultimately struck down that order. The government reads this as validation of Vieira’s underlying mining operations.

That reading is false. The CCJ’s ruling turned on narrow jurisdictional grounds: the Mining Act empowers the Minister to craft regulations tied to that Act, but does not authorise GGMC officers to enforce the separate provisions of the Amerindian Act through Cease Work Orders. The court did not validate Vieira’s permits. It did not extinguish the community’s titled rights. It found, precisely and only, that the enforcement mechanism used was ultra vires.

What the CCJ actually produced was a legal gap: Guyana’s primary mining regulator has no statutory mechanism to enforce Indigenous consent requirements.

That gap has been sitting in plain view since that ruling. The Ali administration — which has had years and a petrostate revenue windfall to address it — has legislatively done nothing. The gap is not an oversight. It is an operational feature.

The CCJ did not validate Vieira’s mining. It exposed a gap. That gap has never been closed. It is now being exploited daily.

III.THE IACHR RECORD AND THE PATTERN OF TARGETED AGGRESSION

Chinese Landing is not new to international human rights scrutiny. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights previously issued precautionary measures for the community, citing a “serious and urgent risk” of irreparable harm. The IACHR documented a pattern of targeted aggression: a 2018 incident in which a local family was allegedly expelled from their home by mine security and the police Tactical Services Unit; multiple accounts of residents subjected to searches at gunpoint.

These measures were issued because ordinary domestic remedies had failed. The community’s land rights had not been adjudicated on their substantive merits. The Court of Appeal has yet to issue a ruling on the community’s underlying claims. Chinese Landing residents have been excluded from past legal proceedings between the GGMC and external miners, leaving their rights unrepresented in proceedings that directly affected their land.

The IACHR’s precautionary measures carry legal weight under international human rights law. The government of Guyana has an obligation to respond to them. The 592 Guardian is not aware of any substantive government action to implement those measures or report compliance to the Commission. This editorial demands that the Ministry of Legal Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General publicly disclose their current posture on Guyana’s IACHR obligations in the Chinese Landing matter.

IV.THE PATTERN: CHINESE LANDING AS TEMPLATE

This editorial treats Chinese Landing not as an isolated case but as the current iteration of a structural pattern this Board has documented across Guyana’s extractive sector.                                The pattern is consistent: state-issued instruments — mining permits, environmental clearances, sole-source contracts — are used to confer apparent legitimacy on operations that bypass mandatory consent, regulatory oversight, or both

When legal challenges arise, the enforcement gap is invoked. When international scrutiny arrives, the government issues process statements that obscure the substantive breach.

The GGMC’s nine-year audit backlog, documented in the 2024 Auditor General’s report and reported by this Board, is not unrelated to Chinese Landing. An agency that cannot produce audited financial statements cannot credibly regulate consent compliance in remote interior communities. The PAC’s stalled oversight function, the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Economic Services’ reduced meeting schedule — these institutional failures do not occur in isolation from Chinese Landing. They are the environment in which Chinese Landing is made possible.

The EKAA HRIM quarry case in Region Seven — passport confiscation, debt bondage, a worker death, no criminal charges — follows the same structural logic: an extraction operation that bypassed labour and consent protections, proceeded under state-issued instruments, and faced no meaningful regulatory consequence. The 592 Guardian filed a formal ILO dossier on that matter. We note that the same enforcement vacuum that enabled EKAA HRIM is the enforcement vacuum that Minister Bharrat is now defending in Chinese Landing.

The extraction pace is blazing. The implementation and enforcement lag is not accidental. It is the policy.

 

V.WHAT MINISTER BHARRAT SAID AND WHAT IT MEANS

Minister Bharrat’s statement to Kaieteur News warrants close legal analysis. He said: “Restrictions for mining in Chinese Landing, outside of legitimate tenure holdings, continue to be in effect.” This formulation does two things simultaneously. First, it acknowledges that restrictions exist — conceding that not all external mining at Chinese Landing is permissible. Second, it carves out “legitimate tenure holdings” as exempt from those restrictions.

But the Amerindian Act does not create a carve-out for tenure holders. Section 48 applies to all external operators regardless of their tenure status. A GGMC-issued permit is not a substitute for the community consent the Act requires. The Minister’s formulation, if it reflects actual government policy, constitutes an executive interpretation of the Amerindian Act that is without statutory basis. It is the kind of interpretation that, if applied consistently, would render Section 48 a dead letter throughout titled Indigenous territories wherever a state-issued tenure exists.

The Minister further asserted that “community members have been receptive.” The Village Council flatly denies this. The Toshao flatly denies this. The broader community, per the council, remains deeply opposed. This Board notes that the government’s claim of community receptiveness is unsubstantiated, contradicted by the titled owners’ elected leadership, and structurally consistent with the government’s practice of identifying sympathetic individuals within Indigenous communities to produce the appearance of consent without its substance.

VI.ACCOUNTABILITY DEMANDS

To Minister Vickram Bharrat:                                                  →Produce the legal opinion on which the government relies to characterise the Vieira operations as lawful under the Amerindian Act, Section 48.                                                        →Identify by name the “community members” whose receptiveness you cited. Explain whether the government considers an individual signature obtained at an airstrip to constitute compliance with the formal agreement requirement under Section 48.

To the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission:               →Disclose whether any formal notification was made to the GGMC that operations had resumed at Chinese Landing. Identify what enforcement mechanism, if any, exists for GGMC to act if the Village Council files a complaint. Produce the current status of Wayne Vieira’s tenure holdings and any conditions attached to those tenures.

To the National Toshaos Council:                                                  →This matter involves a titled community, a statutory consent requirement, active extraction without council approval, and a government minister publicly dismissing the community’s legal position. The NTC has a mandate to advocate for Indigenous land rights nationally. This Board demands a public statement on the Chinese Landing situation and a formal legal position on the government’s interpretation of Section 48.

To the Court of Appeal:                                                                            →The community’s substantive land claims remain undecided. Active, contested extraction is proceeding daily in the interim. This Board formally calls attention to the urgency of this matter and the real-world harm being inflicted during the pendency of proceedings.

To the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:          →The government of Guyana has not, to this Board’s knowledge, provided a substantive compliance report on its obligations under the precautionary measures issued for Chinese Landing. Extraction has resumed. The community remains exposed. We call on the Commission to formally request a compliance update and to treat resumed extraction as a material change in circumstances.

VII. CLOSING: THE NOVEMBER ASSURANCE

As recently as November 2025 — seven months before Minister Bharrat’s statement to Kaieteur News — the government gave the Chinese Landing community assurances that mining restrictions would remain firmly in place. The community accepted those assurances. They were made by a government that knew, or should have known, that tenure holders it was already supporting were preparing to resume operations.

The reversal was not disclosed proactively. It was confirmed reactively, when Kaieteur News asked. The Village Council learned of the government’s changed position through press coverage, not through any formal notification from the Ministry of Natural Resources or any other state body.

This is the governance culture that Guyana’s oil boom has entrenched: assurances without enforcement, restrictions without mechanisms, consent claimed from individuals while the legally mandated collective body is bypassed. Chinese Landing’s titled Carib community did not lose their land rights through a court order. They are losing them through a process of institutional erosion — a budget here, a legislative gap there, a minister’s word that means less every time it is given.

The 592 Guardian will continue to report on this matter. We are requesting from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the GGMC, and the Office of the Attorney General all communications related to Chinese Landing mining operations since January 2025.  

The Editorial Board—The 592 Guardian

 

THE ARSONIST AT THE TABLE

/0 Comments/in , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ EDITORIAL♦ENVIORMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

THE ARSONISTS AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE

How the fossil fuel industry captured the world’s climate process — and what it means for everyone paying the price

I. The Heat Is Not Hypothetical Anymore
From late May 2026 onwards, Europe was struck by severe heatwaves that broke records in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom — with temperatures running 10 to 15 degrees Celsius above normal, causing deaths and arriving earlier than Central European summers have historically begun.
World Weather Attribution scientists found that fossil fuel-driven climate change made this heatwave the most severe and widespread in Europe’s recorded history. 
Spring 2026 was the hottest spring ever recorded in France since measurements began in 1900. In the United States, March 2026 was the warmest March on record for the contiguous 48 states.  These are not anomalies. They are trajectory.

The human cost compounds silently. A 2025 European analysis estimated nearly 63,000 heat-related deaths in Europe in 2024 alone. Heat-related deaths among older people have risen sharply according to the Lancet Countdown, and hundreds of thousands now die globally each year from heat. The United Nations Environment Programme reports that heat-related deaths among adults aged 65 and above have surged by an estimated 85% since the 1990s.                                                                   

This is what manufactured delay costs. Not in abstractions — in bodies

II. What Manufactured Delay Looks Like

The fossil fuel industry has not simply lobbied governments. It has embedded itself inside the very process designed to contain it.
Between 2021 and 2024, a minimum of 5,368 fossil fuel lobbyists attended UN climate talks, representing 859 different fossil fuel organisations, including 180 oil and gas corporations. Just 90 of those corporations produced nearly 60% of global oil and gas output in 2024 alone. 
At COP29 in Baku, more than 1,770 lobbyists — including the heads of major corporations — were granted access, many as guests of the host country Azerbaijan. Their numbers dwarfed almost every country delegation and threatened to drown out the voices of Global South nations, Indigenous peoples, youth, and those who disproportionately bear the brunt of climate impacts. 
ExxonMobil alone sent as many delegates to COP29 as Guyana — a country at imminent risk from rising seas and one where ExxonMobil itself is engaged in offshore oil extraction projects. 

The symmetry is not coincidental; it is structural.

At COP30 in Belém, approximately 599 lobbyists gained access through Party overflow badges that give behind-the-scenes access to the inner workings of negotiations. Major trade associations remained a primary vehicle for influence, with the International Emissions Trading Association bringing 60 representatives, including delegates from ExxonMobil, BP, and TotalEnergies.

As one physician put it bluntly: “When 5,000 fossil fuel lobbyists are allowed to influence our nations’ policies, these are no longer negotiations. It’s an industry convention.

III. The Process Has No Immune System
The structural problem is not just the lobbyists. It is that the UNFCCC process was never designed to defend itself against them.
The UN climate process still lacks a formal conflict of interest policy governing fossil fuel participation.  There is no rule barring a coal executive from sitting in a Party delegation. There is no requirement that participants disclose their financial relationships with polluting industries beyond basic organisational affiliation. Proposals to address this — requiring the exclusion of fossil fuel lobbies from state delegations and mandating full public disclosure of affiliations — have been urged but not adopted.
The June 2026 climate negotiations in Bonn closed amid growing concern over the ability of the UN climate process to deliver action at the required scale, with governments failing to make meaningful progress and in some cases pushing back on already established agreements. 
Decision-making rules allow a small number of states to block progress; representatives from climate-vulnerable communities continue to face obstacles to participation; and the absence of robust safeguards against corporate influence remains unaddressed. 
Meanwhile, the UN climate agency and the UK Met Office project a 75% chance that average global temperatures between 2026 and 2030 will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — the very threshold the Paris Agreement was built to defend.

IV. The COP31 Test


COP31 convenes in Antalya, Türkiye in November 2026 under an unusual co-presidency between Türkiye and Australia, marking what is intended to be a critical transition from negotiation to implementation following the mandates of the Global Stocktake. 
The architecture of previous COPs has created real building blocks. COP30 produced a Global Implementation Accelerator, a Just Transition Mechanism, a climate finance work programme, and Presidency-led roadmaps on forests and transitioning away from fossil fuels. But as analysts observe, COP31 will need to move from frameworks to delivery — and that transition cannot happen while the actors most invested in preventing it are seated at the table.

The co-presidency must publish full team lists, disclose all funding and partnerships, adopt strict conflict-of-interest rules barring sponsorships or consultancies tied to fossil fuel or other high-polluting industries, and release summaries of meetings with external stakeholders.                                       

These are not radical demands; they are basic safeguards that would strengthen legitimacy and set a higher standard for future summits.

 The geopolitical context makes this more urgent, not less. The start of 2026 has demonstrated again how dependence on fossil fuels is closely linked to geopolitical instability — from US energy diplomacy to the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz — and how fossil fuel dependency remains a structural source of instability for energy systems and national economies. 

V. The Deeper Indictment
There is a phrase that deserves to be retired: “the energy transition.” It implies an orderly technical process, as though the world is simply upgrading its infrastructure. What is actually happening is a political confrontation between industries whose survival depends on continued extraction and a planetary system that cannot absorb it.
Over three-quarters of the world’s population lives in countries that are net importers of fossil fuels. High energy prices push up food costs. Inflation fuels political instability. Debt burdens deepen. The fossil fuel crisis has become a development crisis. 
The Caribbean, the Pacific, the Global South broadly — these are not bystanders to a crisis playing out elsewhere. They are its most concentrated victims. When fossil fuel lobbyists overwhelm the delegations of the most vulnerable nations in the negotiating rooms of Baku, Belém, and soon Antalya, they are not merely influencing trade policy. They are, in the most literal sense, determining the survivability of communities that did not cause the crisis.
This is what accountability journalism must name clearly: the delay is not failure. It is outcome. An industry that has operated with impunity inside the process designed to constrain it has extracted exactly what it came for — time.
COP31 is not another chance. It may be among the last ones that matter.

The 592 Guardian holds that verified facts must be stated as facts. The data cited here is publicly available, peer-reviewed, or sourced from credible intergovernmental bodies. The editorial position is our own.

THE GUIANA SHIELD IS BEING REORGANIZED

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

 The 592 GUARDIAN♦EDITORIAL♦ENVIORMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Guiana Shield Is Being Reorganised — And Guyana Is Watching From the Sidelines    What is happening in Venezuela’s mining belt is not Venezuela’s problem alone– JUNE 2026

The arrest of Nicolás Maduro by American special forces in January 2026 was treated in Guyana largely as a geopolitical curiosity — the end of a neighbourhood nuisance, perhaps even a quiet relief given the years of Essequibo belligerence his government sponsored. That reading was dangerously shallow. What has unfolded since in Venezuela’s Bolívar state is not the tidying up of a failed state. It is the reorganisation of the Guiana Shield — the same ancient geological formation that underlies Guyana’s gold and uranium frontier — under American strategic and commercial direction. Guyana is not a spectator to this process. It is a participant whether it chooses to be or not.

 On June 8th, army helicopters swept into Las Claritas, Venezuela’s ground zero for illegal gold mining in Bolívar state. Thousands of freelance prospectors fled. Days later, the United States launched an air strike killing Héctor “Niño” Guerrero Flores, the boss of the Tren de Aragua crime group. President Trump announced the operation was “co-ordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela.” Within weeks, Western mining executives were on the ground at El Callao, one of Venezuela’s most famous gold complexes. In April, Venezuela’s National Assembly had already passed a mining-reform bill cutting royalties, prolonging concessions and allowing international arbitration of disputes. 

The message was unambiguous: the Orinoco Mining Arc, a Portugal-sized stretch of rainforest and mineral wealth that Chávez nationalised and Maduro surrendered to criminal syndicates, is now open for Western business under American military cover.

 This should command the full attention of every Guyanese citizen who has followed this news—outlet coverage of the GGMC’s nine-year audit backlog, the U92 Energy Corp. uranium play at Kurupung, the G2 Goldfields/GMIN merger and Guyana’s failure to enforce change-of-control provisions, and the gold laundering vectors through the Guiana Shield into Brazil and beyond. 

 What The Economist describes from the Venezuelan side of the Shield is the mirror image of what we have been documenting from the Guyanese side: the same unregulated extractive frontier, the same absent regulatory infrastructure, the same criminal networks, the same geological wealth being approached without the governance architecture to manage it responsibly.

 The Shield Does Not Recognise Our Border

 The Guiana Shield is one of the oldest geological formations on Earth, stretching across Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and northern Brazil. It holds some of the world’s most significant deposits of gold, diamonds, bauxite and — as the Kurupung case makes plain — uranium. The criminal networks that have exploited it do not organise themselves around the borders drawn by colonial cartographers. Tren de Aragua, whose leadership the Americans just eliminated in Las Claritas, has been documented operating across the Shield. The FARC dissidents and the National Liberation Army, whom The Economist identifies as still active in Venezuela’s mining belt despite the American air strikes, are not going to demobilise. They are, as one Venezuelan mining industry source told the magazine plainly, going to move. “If you clean up one area, they are going to move somewhere else. It’s that simple.”

 Where do they move? Deeper into national parks, says The Economist. Venezuela’s Imataca and Canaima national parks border Guyana. The Pakaraima mountains straddle the frontier. The same jungle that conceals illegal mining operations at Mazoa Hill and along the Cuyuni river system on the Guyanese side connects without interruption to the zone the Americans are now attempting to clear on the Venezuelan side. The displacement of criminal mining networks from Bolívar state is not a solution to the problem of unregulated extraction on the Guiana Shield. 

It is a pressure valve that will push those networks toward the path of least resistance. Guyana needs to be asking right now whether it is that path.

 The Regulatory Vacuum Is the Real Security Risk

 The government of Guyana will point to the Guyana Gold Board, the GGMC, the Environmental Protection Agency and the various bilateral security arrangements with the United States as evidence that the country is not defenceless. These institutions exist. The question this newspaper has been asking for months — and which events in Venezuela now make urgent — is whether they function adequately for the moment we are in.

The GGMC has not produced audited financial statements in nine years. That is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. In a context where criminal networks are being actively displaced from one part of the Guiana Shield toward another, it means that Guyana’s primary regulatory body for gold and mineral extraction cannot account for what has been extracted, by whom, under what conditions, and where it went. The Mazoa Hill controversy and the Cataratas vector we have previously documented are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a structural gap between the extractive activity occurring on 

 Guyana’s territory and the state’s capacity to govern it.

 The G2 Goldfields/GMIN merger is a related symptom. When the ownership of a major mining concession changes hands through a corporate restructuring and the state’s change-of-control provisions are not enforced, the message sent to the extractive industry — legitimate and otherwise — is that Guyana’s regulatory framework is a formality, not a constraint. That message travels. It is heard in Caracas, in São Paulo, in the offices of commodity traders in Geneva and Singapore who are now making decisions about the post-Maduro Guiana Shield.

And then there is uranium. The U92 Energy Corp. Kurupung project sits in a jurisdiction with

→no domestic regulatory framework for uranium extraction.

→no specialised inspectorate.

→no established environmental liability regime 

→no parliamentary oversight mechanism with the technical capacity to evaluate what is being proposed.

 We have made this argument before on purely governance grounds.                                                                                                    We make it again now on security grounds: a uranium frontier on the Pakaraima border, adjacent to a zone from which armed criminal networks are being displaced by American military operations, is not a situation that a functioning state should approach with a nine-year audit backlog and an unstaffed Data Protection Commission.

 Washington’s New Architecture and Guyana’s Position

 The broader regional picture demands clear-eyed assessment. The Economist documents what it calls the “Trumpification” of Latin America — seven consecutive right-wing presidential victories since January 2025, an ideological convergence around Washington’s priorities on crime, migration and extractive industry, and a network of direct American military co-operation from Ecuador to Venezuela. The PPP government has historically cultivated a careful non-alignment, maintaining relations with Washington, Beijing and Caracas simultaneously. That triangulation is now under structural pressure.

The US-Venezuela arrangement is revealing in its terms. Venezuela under Rodríguez is supplying mineral access, security co-operation and political compliance in exchange for American recognition, sanctions relief, oil export waivers and military protection. Maduro’s Essequibo aggression — the December 2023 referendum, the military mobilisation, the maps redrawn in Caracas — was a product of that previous regime’s political economy. The Rodríguez government, operating under American supervision, has different incentive structures. The Essequibo claim has not been formally withdrawn. But the regime that was prepared to mobilise it militarily has been replaced by one whose survival depends on American goodwill.

This creates a narrow diplomatic window that Guyana should be exploiting with urgency and precision.

 The International Court of Justice case proceeds on its own timeline. But the political conditions that made Venezuelan adventurism possible have shifted significantly. “A Guyanese government with the strategic literacy and institutional capacity to engage this moment could consolidate real security gains. A government that treats it as background noise while managing oil revenues and managing elections is leaving an opening”.

The question of how Georgetown engages Washington in this new regional architecture is not separable from the question of whether Guyana’s extractive governance is adequate to the moment. 

American capital is rushing into the Guiana Shield. American military presence is reorganizing its security environment. American strategic interest in the region’s mineral wealth — gold, uranium, rare earths — is not abstract. 

If Guyana cannot demonstrate that it governs its portion of the Shield with the transparency and accountability that Western investors and institutions nominally require, it will find itself not as a partner in this new architecture but as the next ungoverned frontier to be reorganised by someone else.

What Needs to Happen

This new outlet does not traffic in alarm for its own sake. We state what the evidence requires:                                                                                               
→The GGMC audit backlog must be cleared as a matter of national security, not administrative housekeeping. The government should be asked in Parliament, specifically and on the record, when audited financial statements for 2017 through 2025 will be tabled. No answer is itself an answer.

→The U92 Kurupung uranium project must be paused pending the establishment of a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. This is not anti-investment. It is the condition for investment that does not create liabilities the Guyanese state cannot manage.

The Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Economic Services, reduced from monthly to quarterly meetings in the same period that these extractive governance questions have intensified, must be restored to regular function and given the technical support to conduct meaningful oversight of the mining sector.

 The Guyana government must make a formal public assessment of the security implications of the displacement of criminal mining networks from Venezuela’s Bolívar state toward the Pakaraima border region. If that assessment has been made internally, it should be shared with Parliament and the public.

And the PPP government must decide, clearly and on the record, what Guyana’s strategic posture is in the new regional architecture that:                                                                            American policy is constructing. Non-alignment was a coherent position when the region was genuinely multipolar. It becomes incoherence when the Shield on which your economy depends is being reorganised under the military and commercial direction of one power, on your border, right now.

The Guiana Shield does not belong to Washington.

 It does not belong to Caracas. 

A significant portion of it belongs to the people of Guyana.

It is time to govern it like it does.

 The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability journalism outlet. We accept no government advertising and carry no political affiliations.