ANDREW KARAM & TRACEY MCKAY IAIA CONFERENCE 2014
Introduction One of the consequences of the exploitation of gold has been the rise of acid mine drainage (AMD) (Department of Water Affairs, 2010). This AMD is now a significant environmental pollutant and needs to be dealt with. Some of the key tools enabling effective environmental compliance and enforcement are administrative measures that include permits, compliance notices and directives (Paterson & Kotzé, 2009). How well these tools are being used to manage AMD is a serious concern. Issues have been raised concerning how accountable mining companies are with respect to AMD (Naicker et al ., 2003). Additionally, there is concern over the ability of the SA Government to manage the financial liabilities that may accrue to the state with respect to AMD. This is especially true for ‘ownerless mines’ . How well can end-of-life mines cope with the responsibilities of managing AMD? Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Acid Mine Drainage Figure 1: Acid Mine Drainage in the Witwatersrand region (Source: CleverGreen, 2010). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Research Objectives 1. To create a time-line sequence of events relating to the ownership - and subsequent management - of the Grootvlei Mine, Springs, East Rand. The time-line will then be used to determine who did what, when; which is essential if cause and effect is to be established. 2. To establish if environmental legislation was enforced by government officials and/or complied with by the owners/managers of Grootvlei Mine. Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Description of the Study Area Grootvlei Mine is situated in the Far East Rand Basin of the Witwatersrand Basin. The mine itself lies approximately 3km east of Springs and is bordered by Consolidated Modderfontein (Cons Modder) Mine and Nigel Mine (Dini, 1998; Thorius, 2004). Four producing shafts: Shafts: 1, 4, 6 and 8. The primary pumping shaft was Shaft No 3 (van der Merwe and Lea, 2003; Palmer et al ., 2006). The nearest large river is the Blesbokspruit River, which has an associated wetland, and the Marievale Bird Sanctuary. This is an important river, draining a large area, and is a tributary of the Suikerbosrand River, which ultimately flows into the Vaal River (Dini, 1998). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Aerial View of the Mine Figure 2: Grootvlei Mine shaft localities (Source: Google Earth, 2014). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
East Rand Basin Figure 3: Schematic model of the East Rand Basin (Source: Department of Water Affairs, 2012). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
The Blesbokspruit and Vaal River Catchment Figure 4: Distribution of catchments, rivers and tributaries in the Witwatersrand (Source: Department of Water Affairs, 2012). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Marievale Bird Sanctuary and Wetland Figure 5: Marievale signage (Source: Figure 6: Aerial view of the sanctuary from Chadwick, 2012) the south (Source: Madden, 1997). : Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Grootvlei: A Perfect AMD Storm? Historically, Grootvlei was always prone to flooding. Overtime, more water began to ingress into underground mine workings as the mines in the Eastern Basin began to close. Eventually, all the mines on the East Rand were being dewatered from the Sallies Mine. However, in 1991, Sallies ceased pumping (Thorius, 2004). The discontinuation of pumping activities at Sallies, meant that by October 1995, Grootvlei was pumping 75/80 megalitres of untreated AMD into the Blesbokspruit a day (Thorius, 2004). In 1996, DWAF legalised this situation by issuing a permit to release water into the Blesbokspruit, despite being severely contaminated with sulphates and concentrations of iron (McCarthy, 2011). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Grootvlei Shaft No 3 Figure 7: The primary pumping shaft at Grootvlei Gold Mine (Source: Department of Water Affairs, 2012). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Grootvlei: A Perfect AMD storm? (2) The permit was subsequently revoked by DWAF when red iron oxide particulate matter began to become a permanent feature downstream in the Marievale RAMSAR wetland (van der Merwe & Lea, 2003). Mining operations had to cease, so later that same year, DWAF then issued a second permit, allowing the mine to continue operations (and, therefore, pumping) if six settling ponds (for the precipitation of iron and sulphates) and a High Density Separation (HDS) water treatment plant were built in order to remove metal contaminations (Lea et al ., 2003). This permit only rectified part of the problem, as the water still contained high levels of sulphates. Once the HDS plant was fully constructed and operational, DWAF issued an additional (third) permit allowing partially treated AMD to be discharged into the Blesbokspruit (Lea et al ., 2003). Research conducted by de Wet & Sidu (2013) using HDS quantity and quality monitoring data from Grootvlei shaft No 3 revealed that the HDS plant and settling ponds allowed Grootvlei to operate at the appropriate levels of production until 2009. Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Pump Station Figure 8: Water pumped from the No 3 shaft at Grootvlei into the HDS treatment plant (Source: Department of Water Affairs, 2010). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Methodology Made use of an inductive, qualitative case study framework (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The historical timeline was built with the use of newspaper articles, court records, various specialised reports, as well as records available on the internet. The series of events was reconstructed, against which the actions of people/organisations were compared to what actions were expected of them by the legislation and regulatory framework. Naturally, there are shortcomings to this method: The volume of data available made the task of time-lining complex as there was a plethora of sources, many of which presented contradictory and or different views concerning Grootvlei during the period when AMD became a critical concern. Cross-checking or verifying the events should take place using semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Not having access to confidential corporate documentation or to archives of government material such as correspondence from DWAF and the like. Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Brief Overview of the Events By the 1970 ’s and 1980 ’s gold mining activities on the East Rand began to sharply decline. By the mid-1990 ’s most of the mines had shutdown operations (van der Merwe & Lea, 2003). Grootvlei Mine was one of the last remaining gold mines operating in the East Rand Basin (McCarthy, 2011). At that stage Grootvlei, which active since the 1920 ’s, was owned by GenGold Ltd. who then sold it to Harmony Gold (Pty) Ltd in 1997. Both companies also indicated they planned to re-open shafts at the Consolidated Modderfontein (Cons Modder) Mine - which had last seen active mining in 1962 (Plaut, 2011). In 1998, Harmony sold its Grootvlei and Cons Modder assets to Petmin Ltd. (Salgado, 2011). These sales of mining assets reflect the difficult operating conditions such near- end-of-life mines face. Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Brief Overview of the Events (2) In 2000, Petrex (Pty) Ltd. (a subsidiary of the formerly active Bema Gold Corporation, Canada) bought both mines, together with the Nigel Mining Company (van der Merwe & Lea, 2003; Salgado, 2011). But Bema Gold subsequently faced financial difficulties. In December 2006, a 51% stake in the East Rand operations was bought by a BEE group, Pamodzi Gold Ltd. (Plaut, 2013). By early 2009, Pamodzi Gold Ltd. also began to suffer financially, and underground pumping, and treatment was significantly reduced. The company subsequently faced provisional liquidation. In April 2009, the DME allocated R7,5 million to help Grootvlei deal with its rising water problems (Creamer, 2009). Overall, the government was spending roughly R8 million annually to support AMD pumping and treatment in the ER Basin. Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Brief Overview of the Events (3) In September 2009, Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd. (another BEE group) bid a sum of R495 million for the Grootvlei Mine (Salgado, 2011). Aurora promised to contribute R600 million to upgrading and rehabilitating mine infrastructure, amongst other things (Creamer, 2009). In October 2009, after paying a R10 million deposit, Aurora took control of six producing shafts (four at Grootvlei and two at Nigel and Cons Modder respectively) and the pumping shaft. Soon thereafter the HDS plant at the No 3 shaft ceased to operate (de Wet & Sidu, 2013). By January 2010, two Grootvlei Mine shafts were permanently flooded due to inconsistent pumping practices by Aurora (Stuijt, 2010). AMD treatment also became inconsistent. Miners were not paid their salaries, and for all intents and purposes the mine ceased to operate by mid- 2010. Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Aurora Empowerment Systems Figure 9: Angry mine workers vandalise Aurora signage (Source: Sole & Rawoot, 2010). Karam, A.E. & McKay, T.J. – IAIAsa 2014
Recommend
More recommend
