Administrative vandalism in Karasabai oil outreach

Dear Editor,

The recent “engagement” by Cataleya Petroleum Inc. in Karasabai is not an exercise in corporate social responsibility; it is an act of administrative vandalism. What we are witnessing is the clinical manufacturing of a process designed to look legal while being hollowed out of every meaningful protection afforded to the Indigenous peoples of this nation.

The North Rupununi District Development Board (NRDDB) has sounded the alarm, but the silence from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the EPA is the most telling part of this saga.

The Absence of the Arbiter

By what authority does a private oil company enter a titled Village to “unfold plans” for onshore drilling without a single state regulator present? The absence of the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is a strategic abandonment of the North Rupununi. Without the EPA to provide an independent impact assessment, and without the Ministry to act as a neutral arbiter, these meetings are nothing more than a high-pressure sales pitch conducted in a vacuum.

Did the company act unilaterally? If so, why has the government not issued a Cease-and-Desist? If they acted with tacit approval, why were the people not given Official Notification by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs as required by the spirit of the Amerindian Act 2006?

The Legal Counter-Offensive

The NRDDB is not defenseless. We must remind the “consultants” and their silent partners of the legal walls they are currently hitting:

1. Section 48 of the Amerindian Act: No “miner” or “petroleum operator” can bypass the Village General Meeting. Consent is not a handshake with a single leader; it is a two-thirds majority vote of the entire village. Anything less is a legal nullity.
2. The Escazú Agreement: As a signatory, the Government of Guyana is mandated to provide Access to Justice in environmental matters. By allowing a company to self-report their “consultation” success without state oversight, the government is in dereliction of this international treaty.
3. Constitutional Recourse: Under the precedent of Thomas v. EPA, Guyanese citizens have already proven they can challenge the state’s failure to protect their right to a healthy environment. Onshore drilling in a delicate wetland—a proposed Ramsar Site—is a direct threat to the constitutional rights of the 8,000 residents the NRDDB represents.

Hard Questions for the State

We must ask:

• How did this exploration “idea” move to the village level without a formal, public disclosure of the Takatu Block’s regulatory status?
• Is the Government allowing a “shadow process” to take place so they can later claim they are merely “responding to community interest”?
• Where is the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs? Their mandate is to protect the interests of Indigenous people, yet they appear to have outsourced this protection to the very company seeking to exploit the land.

Conclusion

The NRDDB’s “No-No” is a line in the sand. It is a refusal to let the Rupununi be turned into a laboratory for onshore experiments while the law is conveniently “swept under the radar.” If the government continues to allow this unchecked coercion, they aren’t just letting a company drill for oil—they are letting them drill through the heart of our democracy.

The Savannah is watching.