Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Information and Discussions on Mining Issues
iNdlovu
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 11:58 am
Country: South Africa
Location: Lowveld, South Africa

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by iNdlovu » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:41 pm

Aaaah! But therein lies the truth. Give water to the mine = make money.....water to the masses costs money.
Not a case of "let them eat cake"' but rather a case of "let them be thirsty or die on filthy water
Man was placed in charge and given the duty of caring for all creation, are we doing it?

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:57 pm

Vele is awaiting an integrated water use licence from Department of Water

SA mining needs more regulatory clarity, certainty – CoAL
Posted on November 10, 2012 by venscrusher

JOHANNESBURG – To restore confidence in South Africa as a mining investment destination, more clarity and certainty are needed in its regulatory processes, Coal of Africa Limited (CoAL) theory of ball mill operation pdfCEO John Wallington says.

The JSE-, ASX- and Aim-listed junior coal-mining company has been working closely with the relevant authorities for months to be able to resume mining at its Vele colliery, where the Department of Environmental Affairs has ordered mining to cease and where R600-million has already been invested.

“The attitude and relationship between the mining industry and government has to change from control to enabling,” adds CoAL chairperson Richard Linnell.

CoAL has brought R2-billion worth of foreign direct investment into South Africa, with the promise of doubling that investment.

The company plans to produce ten million tons of coking coal a year in the next ten years, which Wallington says has the ability to be economically transformative for the impoverished Limpopo province.

But there is nothing that investors hate more than regulatory uncertainty, says Wallington.

He believes that it is essential for exploration investment to be confined to where mining will be allowed to take place.

“It’s almost immoral to allow companies to invest millions in exploration when there is no intention of allowing mining in that area,” he adds.

While the commodity boom created $20-billion for China, $12-billion for Chile and $10-billion for Australia, “we created nothing, and this is a mining country”, he says of South Africa.

He acknowledges that CoAL has made many mistakes and that Vele, which is 15 km from the border of the Mapungubwe National Park, a Unesco World Heritage Site. He says that “the park will not see, hear or smell the mine” and he is determined to ensure that the South African government, labour, the near-mine communities and the company all benefit from the proposed coal mining activities.

Mining and rehabilitation will take place concurrently at the Vele opencast coal project, where mining and mine rehabilitation will take place concurrently.

Vele colliery’s opencast mining pit, processing plant and related mining infrastructure are close to completion.

During its development phase, 850 jobs went mainly to residents from the nearby towns of Musina and Alldays.

But with the halting of production, nearly 600 protesting employees were retrenched.

Should the production phase resume, a further 460 jobs will arise.

Vele is awaiting an integrated water use licence from South Africa’s Department of Water Affairs before any coal mining or processing activities can take place.

Vele’s capital expenditure estimate of R450-million has been revised to R571,4-million to include expenses attributable to the suspension of activities on site, as well as processing plant scope changes.

CoAL is delaying the transfer of its primary listing from the ASX to the LSE until after the outcome of the Vele discussions with the Department of Environmental Affairs.

CoAL saw production rise 93% at its Mooiplaats thermal coal project in Mpumalanga.

The 172 022 t of coal exported from the Matola terminal in Maputo, Mozambique, included coal from both Mooiplaats and Woestalleen and 83 167 t of middlings coal was sold to Eskom’s Camden power station.

Sales revenue generated from Mooiplaats for the September quarter totalled R106-million compared with R122-million in the previous quarter.

The ramp-up of Mooiplaats is expected to be completed in early 2011, with five sections producing some 190 000 t/m thereafter.

Woestalleen’s opencast mines produced 930 840 t, made up of 750 130 t from Zonnebloem, 25 968 t from Klipbank and 154 742 t from Hartogshoop.

By the end of September 2010, more than 80 700 m3 of overburden had been removed from the company’s promising Makhado coking coal project in Limpopo province’s Soutpansberg coalfield.

The first raw coal sample is expected to be extracted in the third quarter from where it will be sent to Exxaro’s Tshikondeni mine for processing and then to ArcelorMittal South Africa’s works in Vanderbijlpark for coking tests.

Completion of a definitive feasibility study is expected early next year. The exchange agreement with Rio Tinto creates the Mount Stuart, Voorburg and the Jutland coking coal projects that together form an extension to the Makhado project.

Steelmaker Iscor undertook a drilling campaign across the Mount Stuart, Voorburg and Jutland projects in the 1980s that indicates a resource of opencastable coal with yields that appear to be higher than those at Makhado.

Stable nickel prices allowed CoAL’s NiMag group to return a profit for the quarter but the company was adversely affected by lower than expected orders for alloys and the strengthening of the rand.

During the quarter, NiMag acquired 51% of a Rustenburg foundry and tooling facility from cash flows. Further research, development and analysis of new alloy products continued during the quarter and NiMag is continuing to evaluate additional potential acquisition targets.

The company is in the process of selling its noncore Holfontein coal project.

The geology of CoAL’s 50%-owned Imoloto coal project in Madagascar, for which the company intends making an offering, is similar to that of South Africa’s Witbank

iNdlovu
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 11:58 am
Country: South Africa
Location: Lowveld, South Africa

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by iNdlovu » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:17 am

[quote="Toko"]Vele is awaiting an integrated water use licence from Department of Water

SA mining needs more regulatory clarity, certainty – CoAL
Posted on November 10, 2012 by venscrusher

JOHANNESBURG – To restore confidence in South Africa as a mining investment destination, more clarity and certainty are needed in its regulatory processes, Coal of Africa Limited (CoAL) theory of ball mill operation pdfCEO John Wallington says.

“The attitude and relationship between the mining industry and government has to change from control to enabling,” adds CoAL chairperson Richard Linnell
.

CoAl obviously is against regulation so it can rape and pillage our country and then head back to Australia, leaving us with the mess, think again Linnell
Man was placed in charge and given the duty of caring for all creation, are we doing it?

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:44 pm

CoAL confirms split with Mapungubwe coalition

CoAL confirms split with Mapungubwe coalition
David McKay | Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:17

ALREADY beset by renewed strike action at its Mpumalanga province mine, Mooiplaats, Coal of Africa (CoAL) headed into further problems confirming a coalition of environmentalists opposed to its mining at the Vele Colliery in Limpopo province had withdrawn from an agreement.
The agreement - a memorandum of understanding (MoU) - was penned in November 2011 to avoid litigation that had been planned by the environmentalists, known as the 'Save the Mapungubwe Coalition' (the Coalition).
The coalition was especially opposed to the issue of a water use licence to CoAL owing to the scarcity of resources in the region.
The MoU was intended to become a memorandum of association and allow for the Coalition to monitor mining activities at the mine.
However, in an announcement to the JSE this morning, John Wallington, CEO of CoAL, said the Coalition had never visited the mine despite several invitations to do so.
In a statement on December 7, the Coalition said there was additional information of on-going non-compliance with water legislation at Vele Colliery.
Said Wallington: "The company is of the firm view that the basis on which the Coalition is withdrawing and its allegations are inaccurate, which CoAL has addressed on numerous occasions with the Coalition.
"In addition, the Coalition has to date not been to the Vele mine site in spite of the numerous invitations from the company for it to visit in order to observe and appreciate the systems introduced to manage the environment".
Wallington said his company would continue to engage with the Coalition through a committee established in terms of Vele's environmental authorisation, known as the Environmental Management Committee.

CoAL, environmental coalition part ways
CoAL, environmental coalition part ways

By: Natasha Odendaal
10th December 2012

JOHANNESBURG (miningweekly.com) – After almost a year of negotiations, the Save Mapungubwe Coalition has withdrawn from a landmark memorandum of understanding (MoU) with South African emerging coal miner Coal of Africa Limited (CoAL).

The parties, which initially targeted January 2012 for the completion of a much-delayed conversion to a memorandum of agreement, signed an MoU in November last year in efforts to strengthen cooperation for the sustainable development, preservation and protection of the Mapungubwe cultural landscape, near which CoAL has its Vele colliery, in Limpopo.

Hopes of the conversion dissolved after the coalition last week publicly accused the coal junior of past and ongoing noncompliance with water legislation at the colliery, and terminated its participation.

The coalition said in a statement that new research and emerging information revealed that CoAL did not have all the authorisations it required for certain water-use activities associated with its mining operations, and alleged that the mine still did not have the required approvals.

“Although this is disputed by CoAL, the DWA [Department of Water Affairs] has advised the coalition that Limpopo Coal [CoAL’s local subsidiary] had been instructed to apply for such authorisations by the DWA, but had failed to do so,” the coalition said, adding that the impact on watercourses as a result of the unauthorised water-use activities now needed urgent remediation.

CoAL CEO John Wallington, who reaffirmed the company’s environmental commitments, claimed the allegations were inaccurate, saying that the environmental group had not actually visited the site, despite several invitations.

“The mine is regularly audited by environmental authorities and to date has not received negative feedback on environmental compliance,” he said, adding that Vele’s independent environmental audit compliance exceeded 90%.

He stated that production at the Vele colliery continued and was not expected to be impacted by the disintegration of the MoU, as the company had valid regulatory licences and permits, including the integrated water-use licence, for all its activities.

The coalition comprises the Endangered Wildlife Trust, BirdLife South Africa, Wilderness Foundation South Africa, the World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa, Mapungubwe Action Group and the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists.

Edited by: Mariaan Webb

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 64091
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Lisbeth » Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:38 pm

"In addition, the Coalition has to date not been to the Vele mine site in spite of the numerous invitations from the company for it to visit in order to observe and appreciate the systems introduced to manage the environment".
Why not? There opposition must be considered less objective and with less foundation :-? (Presuming that you can trust the Company). Would the Coalition not be stronger if they could object to the real situation?
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge

User avatar
Toko
Posts: 34047
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Toko » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:52 pm

Summit TV interview with CoAL CEO

SUMMIT TV Save Mapungubwe relationship with CoAL

Mr John Wallington CEO of Coal of Africa Limited.

SUMMIT TV - CoAL shares are again under pressure after the Save Mapungubwe Coalition decided to withdraw from their MoU with the coal miner on Friday announcing they saw no reasonable prospect of achieving best practice at the Vele mine through further talks. Mr John, you’ve put out a statement that a number of the statements made by the Save Mapungubwe Coalition on Friday were inaccurate. Can you tell us which statements specifically?

Mr John - It’s a very long winded article from the Save Mapungubwe Coalition so it would be difficult to go through that in detail.

STV - I’ll read and you can respond they said that it appears when it commenced mining that CoAL did not have all the authorizations required for water use associated with its operations and still do not have the authorizations. Although this is disputed by CoAL the Department of Water Affairs has advised the Save Mapungubwe Coalition Limpopo Coal had been instructed to apply for such authorizations but had failed to do so".

JW - That’s complete nonsense the original agreement in the MoU was that there was an acknowledgment that Vele had the full environmental approvals from the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of the Environment. The whole MOU was that together we would find ways to go beyond compliance so it was not just that we acknowledged that we had full compliance with existing legislation, but that we were going to go beyond that.

STV - Best practice.

JW - Best practice. To have best practice there are going to be big gaps so how I understood the MOU is that we were going to identify those gaps together and move forward to close those gaps together. That hasn’t happened we’ve identified some gaps and then they decided they didn’t like the gaps. I’m at a loss for words I’ve put my personal reputation on this. Certainly the industry as a whole didn’t see this succeeding but I thought we could succeed. Maybe I was a bit naive. Quite frankly it’s become irrelevant in my view they are part of the environmental management committee and there is a range of people involved in monitoring Vele, from the Department of the Environment to South African National Parks to the Department of Water Affairs, as well as interested and affected parties from around the mine, which probably makes the MOU irrelevant anyway.

STV - Your statement said that the MOU might have addressed some of the gaps.

JW - Towards best practice not compliance.

STV - What are those gaps?

JW - We are still identifying them together our company sponsored some studies that we were working through with them, and we will continue to adequately address those gaps. There is always going to be gaps there isn’t a single mine or activity in this country that doesn’t have significant gaps. I think it’s all got a little out of kilter.

STV - This is a very sensitive area they are referring to with a lot of cultural and ecological significance, so one wants to aim for best practice.

JW - We are and we will reach best practice with or without the Save Mapungubwe Coalition.

STV - You mention in the statement you put out that you are regularly audited by the environmental authorities do you publish the results?

JW - We haven’t I must check with the government authorities whether we can but certainly we’ve had fantastic results. We’ve also had a significant number of visits from farm organizations that have been impressed. Every audit that we’ve had from the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of the Environment we’ve had above 90% so we’ve had extremely good audits from the EMC. We will always have gaps and we will need to continuously fix that but we have a very passionate team on the ground who wants to make a difference and be the best. We have a lot of distinguished environmentalists who are helping us get there and it looks like the Save Mapungubwe Coalition won’t be a part of that.

STV - The Save Mapungubwe Coalition referred to new research that had come to light that an independent expert had identified detrimental impacts on water courses as a result of unauthorized water use activities that require urgent remediation.

JW - Again that’s complete nonsense and that’s where I get frustrated. The whole idea was to have that study and identify gaps and together we were going to say this is how we are going to resolve it. It was not to say, here are the gaps you are not now compliant. That is complete nonsense. These water courses they’re talking about we’ve had significant heavy rainfall recently and there wasn’t a liter of water that went down those water courses so it depends on what one identifies as a water course. I am very frustrated with this and we are going to achieve best practice at Vele with or without the Save Mapungubwe Coalition. The EMC which was part of the approval of that mine is working extremely well and the Save Mapungubwe Coalition is part of that EMC and hopefully they will participate as constructively as everybody else does.

STV - The MOU and that an agreement can no longer be reached does that impact on your activities or will you carry on regardless?

JW - It doesn’t impact we comply fully. We are extremely motivated to make Vele a best practice and we’ve had significant recognition that we are doing that. If the Save Mapungubwe Coalition don’t want to recognize that, that’s their baby.

STV - Do you foresee any legal challenges? That’s how they started and then they decided to negotiate.

JW - We don’t foresee any legal challenges and if there are we will fight them tooth and nail.

STV - It is the case that you’ve had a lot of challenges, not just at Vele but at Makhado and Mooiplaats, so it’s been a very difficult year for CoAL do you anticipate it getting any easier?

JW - It’s been a difficult year for the mining industry, it’s been a terrible year. Mooiplaats has been caught up in the labor issues, which is very sad. It’s very difficult and these are the industry issues we’ve had and I hope for the country and mining industry we have a better 2013.

STV - Environmental issues aside, what is your message to shareholders, a lot of whom have watched the share price sink to new depths?

JW - Sadly the company is in a very difficult position at the moment both from a country point of view with the high risk and the fact that all junior mining companies right now are struggling including CoAL. I came in when Vele had already been closed and we’ve done everything to try turning that around and making it a best practice site which we will succeed with. I have no doubt that we will succeed and that’s the message we are giving shareholders directly and some of them have come to visit the mine that we are going to achieve that goal. We certainly have every intention of wanting to achieve that goal.

Source - Coal of Africa Limited


_______________________________________________

Save Mapungubwe Coalition: Statement
SAVE MAPUNGUBWE COALITION
STATEMENT
Johannesburg, South Africa


The Save Mapungubwe Coalition withdraws from the Memorandum of Understanding with Coal of Africa Limited, and joins the Environmental Monitoring Committee for the Vele Colliery

Background
1. In 2010, the Save Mapungubwe Coalition (the Coalition) instituted legal proceedings aimed at setting aside the mining approvals granted to Limpopo Coal Company Pty Ltd for the Vele Colliery because the Coalition believed that the decision to authorise mining in this area was inappropriate. The Coalition was also of the view that that the decision to grant a water use licence for the Vele Colliery was inappropriate and was based on insufficient and unreliable information. That position has not changed.

2. Towards the end of 2011, the Coalition resolved to commence negotiations with Coal of Africa Limited (CoAL) and its subsidiary Limpopo Coal Company Pty Ltd (jointly referred to as “CoAL”). The decision to commence negotiations was based on the Coalition’s assessment that it was more likely to achieve best practice through negotiation rather than litigation.

3. On 24 November 2011, the Coalition signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with CoAL to guide negotiations towards a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA).The overall aim of these negotiations, as agreed by both the Coalition and CoAL, was to set a benchmark for best practice in relation to managing and mitigating the impacts of coal mining and related activities on the environment, specifically including the impact on water and heritage resources – not only for the Vele Colliery, but for all future coal mines. This would be done through:

a. commissioning additional research of the potential impacts of mining and related activities on water and heritage resources, which had not been done prior to the licences being issued; and
b. in view of the results of this additional research, agreeing amendments to licences issued to CoAL for the Vele Colliery, as well as timeframes for the submission of amendment applications to the Departments of Water Affairs (DWA) and Mineral Resources. Together with other key issues set out in the MoU, this further agreement would be recorded in the MoA.

Withdrawal from negotiations

4. After nine months of engagement, the Coalition took the decision to withdraw from the MoU and to cease negotiations towards an MoA.The reasons for this decision are as follows:

a. As a result of the additional research commissioned during negotiations, new information came to light about past and ongoing non-compliance with water legislationat the Vele Colliery, as well as existing detrimental impacts that now require remediation.
i. It appears that, when it commenced mining, CoAL did not have all the authorisations it required for certain water use activities associated with its mining operations, and still do not have such authorisations. Although this is disputed by CoAL, the DWA has advised the Coalition that Limpopo Coal had been instructed to apply for such authorisations by the DWA, but had failed to do so. CoAL did not disclose this to the Coalition prior or during negotiations.An independent expert has identified detrimental impacts on watercourses as a result of the unauthorised water use activities, which impacts now require urgent remediation.
ii. Furthermore it also appears that, since the water use licence was granted, there has been non-compliance at Vele in respect of which the DWA issued a non-compliance letter to CoAL in June 2012. Although we are advised that this non-compliance has now been remedied, CoAL did notdisclose this to the Coalition at the time.
b. Too much information essential for setting best practice remained outstanding to be able to achieve any agreement on best practice in the near future. Based on expert advice, the Coalition believes and has consistently stated that this information should have been obtained by Limpopo Coal before approvals were granted to Limpopo Coal. This includes, in particular, reliable information about the impact the mining activities will have on groundwater.

5. In these circumstances, the Coalition no longer saw any reasonable prospect of achieving best practice through negotiating a further agreement with CoAL. The Coalition notified CoAL of its decision in writing, and also met with CoAL today, 7 December 2012, to close negotiations.

Engagement with authorities, and joining the Environmental Monitoring Committee

6. Since August 2012, the Coalition has met with the Department of Water Affairs and Department of Environmental Affairs to draw the non-compliance at the Vele Colliery to the attention of the authorities. As at 7 December 2012, neither department has confirmed any plans to take further enforcement action to ensure compliance. As far as we are aware, no deadline have been set for applications for the outstanding water use licences or for the recommended remediation on site.

7. On 31 October 2012, the Coalition requested and was accepted as full member of the Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC) for the Vele Colliery. The Coalition’s objectives at the EMC are, firstly and most urgently, to ensure compliance with environmental, water and heritage legislation at the Vele Colliery, and secondly to ensure the preservation and protection of the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape.

Achievements, and lessons learnt

8. The Coalition and its organisational members have spent significant time and resources on trying to protect the water and heritage resources impacted by this particular colliery. We believe that our intervention has raised significant awareness, both locally and internationally, about the natural and cultural heritage contained in the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, and highlighted the urgent need for adequate protection of our World Heritage Sites, including provision for adequate buffer zones for all World Heritage Sites.

9. However, we also acknowledge thatwe have not achieved what we hoped to achieve at the Vele Colliery through either the legal proceedings, or the negotiations undertaken during 2012. This highlights a number of key lessons:

a. Integrated permitting: The need for a coordinated, integrated permitting system that allows mining, water, environmental and heritage authorities enough time and opportunity to exercise their respective mandates in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution and other applicable legislation.
b. No-go areas: The need for authorities to agree on and demarcate areas of heritage, ecological, biodiversity, cultural and hydrological importance and value where no mining should be allowed, particularly to avoid a situation where mining companies are allowed to invest significant capital in an area where mining should never have been allowed in the first instance. A proposed list of such areas of critical biodiversity and hydrological value and sensitivity, based on extensive scientific researchand consultation with a wide range of affected parties and authorities, was submitted to the Minister of Mineral Resources in February 2011 by a group of thirteen NGOs. Although the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs mentioned in public earlier this year that an announcement of prohibited areas by her mineral resources counterpart was imminent, as at date hereof no such declaration has been made public.
c. Fixing damage after bad decisions based on inadequate information: The challenges of trying to remediate detrimental environmental impacts caused by the issuing of authorisations without adequate information, or by unauthorised activities that have caused harm to the environment. To ensure sustainable use of land and natural resources, it is essential to ensure that all necessary information is collected and assessed by the relevant authorities before making their decisions in terms of planning and environmental authorisations.

d. Best practice cannot be achieved retroactively: The impossibility of trying to achieve best practice in relation to managing and mitigating the impacts of coal mining and related activities on the environment retroactively. Implementing best practice cannot be an “afterthought” in project development. It has to be an intrinsic part of the design, development and implementation process of a project to be cost and time effective and efficient.

e. More coherent decision-making: The need for decisions on environmental impacts assessments (EIAs) to take into consideration other planning strategies and policies (especially in terms of water and biodiversity) in the national, provincial and municipal spheres. In this case, the Coalition believes that if such documents had been duly considered, this development would not have been authorised in its current location.

Call for national planning discussion on future mining developments

10. Based on the above, the Coalition urges government, especially the Presidency and the National Planning Commission (NPC), to facilitate a focused, strategic and inclusive planning discussion regarding future mining developments in South Africa and especially regarding possible future mining developments in the Waterberg Area which has been identified as a key action by the NPC in its latest Development Plan: Vision 2030. Integrated strategic planning will be the only way:

a. to facilitate sustainable development in the Waterberg area, which is a high biodiversity and water scarce area;
b. comprehensively and proactively to map and inform the possible coal mining development in the area, prior to the EIA stage, taking into consideration all relevant information, avoiding unnecessary delays and costs at a later stage for the government, developers and other relevant stakeholders.

11. South Africa cannot afford to impact any further on some of the critical biodiversity, water and related ecosystems infrastructures and services which are essential and necessary for economic and social development. It is the duty of government to ensure that its decisions contribute to sustainable development.

THE SAVE MAPUNGUBWE COALITION

BirdLife South Africa
Carolyn Ah Shene-Verdoorn Tel: 011-789 1122/ 082 776 8333 advocacy@birdlife.org.za / (http://www.birdlife.org.za)
Endangered Wildlife Trust (http://www.ewt.org.za)
Wilderness Foundation South Africa (http://www.wildernessfoundation.co.za)
World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (http://www.wwf.org.za)
Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (http://www.asapa.org.za)
Mapungubwe Action Group

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 64091
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Lisbeth » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:45 pm

JW - We are and we will reach best practice with or without the Save Mapungubwe Coalition.
No compromise?
JW - It doesn’t impact we comply fully. We are extremely motivated to make Vele a best practice and we’ve had significant recognition that we are doing that. If the Save Mapungubwe Coalition don’t want to recognize that, that’s their baby
Who cares what happens to a "world Heritage Site" 0= 0=
JW - We don’t foresee any legal challenges and if there are we will fight them tooth and nail.
I hope that you will loose (0)

Not even ready for compromises?
STV - It is the case that you’ve had a lot of challenges, not just at Vele but at Makhado and Mooiplaats, so it’s been a very difficult year for CoAL do you anticipate it getting any easier?
Meaning that something is not working, something is wrong. Somebody does not like what you are doing and AW is one of those!!!!!!
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge

iNdlovu
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 11:58 am
Country: South Africa
Location: Lowveld, South Africa

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by iNdlovu » Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:31 pm

\O Lis.
I have a question and it possibly comes from ignorance or a non understanding problem......

In the above interview there is a lot of talk about "best practice". My question is, what is best practice and who set the bar.
Best practice to some, like COAL, might mean, grabbing coal out of the the ground and then covering up the hole they have dug at as little cost as possible. Best practice to the government may be that the company follows all legislation and procedures. Best practice to me means that there is absolutely no impact, and I mean nada, nothing, no effect on water, no effect on air purity from a coal dust and earth dust point of view, no effect on the ambiance of this wild area, no effect on the animals in the area and no effect on the treasures at the heritage sight.
Probably a fairly tall order, but which best practice is the company talking about, because just maybe their idea of best practice is not good enough for the owners of this place, the citizens of South Africa.
Man was placed in charge and given the duty of caring for all creation, are we doing it?

User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 77238
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Richprins » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:16 pm

DWAF...Department of Water and Forestry, are in deep trouble over the acid water catastrophe in Gauteng. DEA, Department of Environmental affairs, are also responsible.

Both Ministers will probably be axed after this month's Mangaung governing party conference.

Hence no responses.

Next year, as said before! \O
Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 64091
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Mining in the Mapungubwe area

Post by Lisbeth » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:23 pm

Mangaung governing party conference.
What does Mangaung mean, please :-?
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge

Return to “Mining Issues”