AQUILA STEEL (S AFRICA) (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED · PDF fileKhosi Mohlahlo Shangoni Management Services KM ... CINEMA HALL OF THE KUMBA IRON ORE THABAZIMBI MINE, 10:00 6 EBN stated, in

AQUILA STEEL (S AFRICA) (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED MELETSE IRON ORE PROJECT -

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING, 1ST FEBRUARY 2014, CINEMA HALL OF THE KUMBA

IRON ORE THABAZIMBI MINE, 10:00 (MINING RIGHT REF NO: LP30/5/1/2/2/10071MR; EIA

REF NO: 12/1/9/2-W50; NEAS REF NO: LIM/EIA/0000727/2013; WASTE REF NO:

12/9/11/L1387/5)

Attendance register:

NAME ORGANISATION ABBREVIATION

A. Le Roux Sishanke Hydr. ALR

A.H. Combrink Private AHC

Adolf Ramogale Thabazimbi Municipality AR

A.W. Jonker Die Jonker Trust AWJ

Ampie Venter JAU AV

Andrew Nicholson Umhlaba Consulting AN

B. Swanepoel Modamela BS

B.K. Makaepea AISP BKM

C. Barkhuizen Chamber of Commerce CB

C. Cavaleros Calshelf CC

C. York Imberbe (Pty) Ltd CY

D. Henning Facilitator DH

Darius Meletse Private Game Reserve D

E. Bisschoff Private EB

Eugene Fouché Marekele Ecco Estate (Marekele

homeowners association) EF

E.B. Nieuwoudt Buffelshoek EBN

E.B. Nieuwoudt Rooiberg bewaring EBN

F.J. Niemand Meletse Game Breeders FJN

Fred Stow Meletse Private Game Reserve FS

George Ferreira Private GF

Harold Braack 360 Kransberg Eco HB

J. Blaauw Thabazimbi Business Chamber JB

Jan Coetzer Donkerpoort JC

Jan Nel Shangoni Management Services JN

Johann van Breda Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd. JVB

Khosi Mohlahlo Shangoni Management Services KM

L. Erasmus Leopard cave LE

Lizzie Wilkinson Private LW

AQUILA STEEL (PTY) LTD - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING, 1ST FEBRUARY 2014,

CINEMA HALL OF THE KUMBA IRON ORE THABAZIMBI MINE, 10:00

2

M. Grobler Solu Gratia MG

Marius Schrenk Private MS

Mashadi Monaledi Aquila Steel (S Africa) (Pty) Ltd. MM

Minnette Le Roux Shangoni Management Services MLR

P. Steenekamp Mckip Zyn Rand PS

Pierre Mostert Private PM

Roelf Crause Mckip Zyn Rand RC

S. Mckernan Champion Wildlife SM

Tokkie Swanepoel TBBV, Chamber, TVF TS

W.T.A. WIlkinson Private WW

Wilhelm Schack Private WS

Minnette Le Roux Shangoni Management Services MLR

The following issues raised are tabled below:

ISSUES RAISED RESPONSE

HB asked on what the sensitivity map was based.

JN responded that before Aquila Steel (S Africa)

Pty Ltd (ASSA) started with prospecting, a

biodiversity assessment was done by Christo

Gagiano on a six monthly basis to gather historical

data required for prospecting. An extensive fauna

and flora biodiversity assessment was done on

site for the two different farms from January last

year over the entire spectrum of the year. The

biodiversity report identifies all the fauna and flora

sensitivity areas based on the biodiversity.

HB also asked what Section 24G process is. JN responded that the S24G will be discussed

afterwards to explain the process.

MS asked the following questions:

1. What the situation is at Klipgat. We don’t

know if Klipgat is in the picture or not?

2. The routes that were discussed earlier is

somewhat vague. There is a possible route

to Alma and there is a possible route to

Thabazimbi, it sounds as if Thabazimbi is

the preferred route. We would like to know

which road will be used by the mine.

JVB responded that Klipgat is part of the

prospecting rights. Prospecting is continuing and

not part of this mining right application.

JVB responded that it is the road that runs past

the proposed mine on the Rooiberg road running

parallel to the mountain going down the road in the

direction of Thabazimbi, and where it joins with the

tar-road. This is route 1 (Southern route) as

indicated in slide 24 on the presentation.



3

3. That road is currently almost inaccessible.

How soon will this road be used and who will

be responsible for the upgrades. If it is the

government, I would like to know.

4. How does the mine see the use of the road,

will there be a railroad alongside the road, or

will it be used for vehicles?

JVB answered that “the upgrades will not be

started until ASSA has received all

rights/authorizations. When construction on the

mine starts, we will also start construction on the

road. It is planned for 2016. The road will be

upgraded by ASSA during construction. By

upgrading, we mean the road will receive a new

foundation. whether it will be a gravel road or a

tarred road, we are not sure yet.”

JVB responded that there will be approximately

400 trucks on that road per day. It may be possible

that a truck may pass every minute. JN said that

they received the draft traffic impact study the

previous week. “The study compares the four

routes based on the present volumes of traffic at

crossings on the roads. The technical detail will

form part of the EIA, so IAPs will be able to see it

and comment on it. The study will make provision

for alternatives and recommendations on what the

best option is,:for example, in the study one option

was to use the route through Thabazimbi town this

we removed as it is impossible to have more traffic

on this already busy route.

DH Although we are in the scoping phase of the

project and there are baseline studies and the

report is in draft form the specialists can go back

to the specialist studies and add in additional

information during the process.

JN stated that the specialist studies had not been

completed yet and that only the baseline studies

were completed. He also stated that now that

ASSA had their preferred mine layout the

specialists would use this information and

determine the impact on the environment. “This

information will form part of the scoping study



4

which you will have time to review and give your

inputs.”

AN asked when the last documentation would be

submitted to the Department of Mineral Resources

(DMR). Would it be the 26th of March?

AN stated that “The decision will be made by the

DMR based on all the documentation, whether to

grant the mining right based on information

submitted on the 26th of March. Yet you are still not

aware of what is happening in numerous aspects. On

the 26th of March a potential decision is going to be

made on whether to grant a mining right. Why was

the mining right application submitted when all the

specialist studies are still in progress? He enquired

why did they proceed with a mining right.

JN responded that it is the EMP and it was due on

26 March.

JVB responded that when you look at the mining

right application, that is actually when you only

start with a lot of the studies. He also stated that

they have found that 6 months from the date of

getting a letter of acceptance from the DMR you

are never going to deal with all the studies and

they will not be done in time. This is why we

commenced earlier with the studies. Then you

have the information, and some additional

information is going to come in. This is going to

have to be incorporated into the final document.

JN added that “these are the timeframe that they

have, and what I see as the mitigating factor in the

process is that when it is submitted on the 26th, the

document will be amended after that. That

amendment will be based on all the Interested and

Affected Party’s (I&AP’s) inputs as well as any

new information that becomes available in that six

months after submission. The specialist studies

will be finalized two weeks before the 26th of

March, so the documentation will be available for

submission in the EMPR.”



5

WS stated that his question covers the traditional

land use pattern of the whole area (including the

Waterberg Biosphere, Marakele, and all the adjacent

land, the Rooiberg area, the Sandrivier valley and

the Alma Plato). He stated that he has asked

repeatedly in the past that a specialist study must be

done in terms of the impact on the economy on the

traditional land use patterns (with specific focus on

conservation, eco-tourism, game breeding and

agriculture). He felt that he got a cold shoulder in the

past from Aquila’s side, as there was no indication

that such a study would be conducted. His concern

was that the mine would be placed squarely in the

middle of this area, on the southern side of the

Waterberg’s biosphere and that it would destroy the

land along with its land use pattern associated

economy. He also stated that it is such a critical

question, that he believes that you (Aquila Steel) are

not willing to let these studies be done. He enquired

what Aquila Steel is going to do about this specific

question.

JVB responded that an economic impact study

had been done.

In the scoping report there are certain comments

on the economic impact study. JVB also stated

that, speaking under correction, at the time that

the study was done, there was no cooperation

from the community. ASSA had to rely on

information from the specialist who conducted the

economic study. MM added that the economic

impact study specialist (Gerrie Muller) used

baseline information from a variety of sources.

JN responded that they were not ignoring WS,

and reminded everyone that they are in the

scoping phase of the project. They started with

the economic baseline study, and a socio-

economic impact study was also underway. JN

also responded that the reason for the deficiency

in the economic study was the lack of information.

He stated that the problem is that it is difficult to

quantify the economic aspects of the farms in the

area. The specialist asked questions on specific

parameters, but was ignored and told that he

could not get the information. JN said that they

quantified the economic aspects based on

provincial data (which he also questioned

because it is high level data).

DH asked if the project team could send out

specific information to the I&AP’s so that they

could understand the requirements of the study.

He said “We have to do justice to the study.”

EBN stated that he’d spoken to Gerrie Muller

(economic specialist) personally and that he offered

him information regarding scarce game-farming in

the area, and also gave him studies. He asked that

there must not generalize that the information was

not given.

JN apologized for any generalizations. He also

said that the specialist was busy with the study,

and that he would make contact with him so that

they could reach all the people.



6

EBN stated, in his opinion, that they conducted a

one-sided impact study and that an impact study was

not done on what is happening in the environment.

He asked that WS’s request must be completed so

that an impact study can be done on what is

happening in the environment and that it should not

be proved that mine is positive. EBN stated that he

has been on his farm for 14 years and that they have

a life of mine of 18 years. He stated that they scar

the environment, but we are that ones who are going

to live here. He requested that the economic study

must please be completed.

EBN stated that if they asked the people of the

community in the correct manner, they will receive

the information. We need to establish the impact on

the surrounding communities.

EBN stated that there is a mistrust issue. He stated

that “ASSA called in 2007 and told them that they

were going to do a little prospecting. Some people

asked what the impacts would be, but they were

ignored at that point in time. There is an EMP that

gives an indication of what activities will take place

like: which includes no blasting, roads 1.6 to 3 km.

These are simple things, but they can have a big

impact on us. If you are man enough – tell us how

many km of roads there are, a minimum of 30 km. It

is permanent damage. You have a rehabilitation fund

of R50 000 to fix those roads.”

He asked that JVB to please address the issue of

trust. EBN stated that he does not trust JVB (in terms

of ASSA) as he had blatantly lied to them and

promised them that there would be no blasting. He

requested that ASSA be open and transparent with

us (I&APs). He asked “Why do you need your

baseline before you have to apply for your water

license? You couldn’t care less about my water.”

JVB responded that as a representative of ASSA

he took responsibility for the mistrust, he stated

that they did do that. In the first meeting, it was

said “no more blasting” and then blasting took

place. JVB stated that it happened, and they

cannot take it away. He stated that they have

progressed from that point. They amended their

EMP’s and added to their rehabilitation

guarantees. JVB stated that these guarantees

had been approved by the DMR and were going

to be submitted in the next week. He stated that

the guarantee was roughly R 900 000 for

Donkerpoort.

JVB stated that everyone had to keep in mind that

ASSA had budget allocated to repair work where

they have constructed roads. He stated that it is

not necessarily always incorporated into the

amount that is in the rehabilitation plan.



7

CC stated that “this mountain is iconic, it has been

here for millions of years. You come here and you

say 18 years, you will make a big hole there, bugger

everyone else. We do not care about your mining. It

is a hit and run, you bugger off and leave 600

workers behind and who is stuck with the problem?

We are. It is a disgrace what you are doing with this

mountain. This is not the last that you are going to

hear from us. All these people, are good people (I

am not saying you aren’t) but you are doing it just for

money. This is our country and we are going to

protect this mountain. Best you pack your bags and

go. It is not fair, if you do pack up and go and leave

all the pollution behind, you have about R50 000 to

rehabilitate 33 km. You fooled everybody. What

happens if my water gets polluted? What are you

going to do about it? This mine dump that you are

going to have, are you going to plant grass? Are we

going to get all the dust and noise? These guys are

going on camps and they are spending millions,

tourists coming here will hear your mine going on, I

would like answers.”

“As far as the EIA and law side is concerned, I have

my attorneys on that, I am not going to get involved

in that.”

DH said “lets allow ASSA to answer. There’s a lot

of people who also want to ask questions. “

JVB stated that they say we fooled them, but that

it is their opinion. He stated that when Shangoni

came aboard on this project, they conducted an

environmental performance assessment. Based

on that, ASSA looked at EMP’s for both Klipgat

and Donkerpoort, and amended them. He stated

that the IAPs had access to the amended EMPs

as well and that in those EMPs the guarantee is

roughly R900 000-00 for Donkerpoort.

JVB stated that in terms of the waste dump, in

terms of overall rehabilitation there would more

than likely be a point where ASSA would have to

grass it and try to make it visually acceptable and,

like the surrounding environment. JVB stated that

in terms of their mitigation, those are the aspects

that they would have to address.

JVB stated that another aspect that was named is

dust and in terms of that there are specific rules to

which they must abide.

JVB also stated that he fully understood the

I&APs’ frustration but reiterated that a mine is

more visible than prospecting activities and

people take chances – “and it is unfortunate”. He

also said that they constantly had a fight with their

exploration offices, because ASSA make certain

commitments and then they go and do something

else.

JVB then addressed the water quality issue. He

stated that he could not answer it at the moment,

except that from his understanding the ore body is

an oxide ore, so there is no potential for acid mine

drainage. From a siltation point of view, those are

aspects that ASSA would have to look at and



8

CC enquired why they don’t put up a hundred or a

hundred and fifty million rand with the mining

commissioner and say that money may be held in the

event that we do depart so that it all can be fixed.

“Give us something, you can do what you want and

if it does not work, goodbye.” CC stated that they are

presuming that it is going to work.

CC asked who approved the R50 000 for the

rehabilitation of the road. He stated that they can’t

answer that.

understand better. That is why the geohydrology

study in required.

In answering EBN’s question, JVB stated that

from a water level perspective the information was

needed because ASSA needs to apply for a water

use license. As part of everything else is the

geohydrology; ASSA “needs to understand what

the potential impact on the ground water will be,

where groundwater is located and what the

impacts on your (IAPs) land will be from the

actions that ASSA take. We require water for dust

suppression. We need to understand if there is

enough groundwater available without impacting

you (IAPs) so significantly. Can we use

groundwater or do we have to go to the Crocodile

river system to get water from there?”

JVB responded that from the perspective of

putting down money, when you start a mine you

have to do a rehabilitation guarantee again, which

is based on premature closing. This is a

calculation that still needs to be done on all the

impacts that we will have. The calculation then

gets submitted to the DMR, who can approve it or

request a recalculation.

DH asked that this discussion must be continued

later, as he wants to move on to other people with

questions.

DH requested that Wilhelm and Jan, in terms of

this specialist study which is close to many

people’s hearts, take this up in a focus meeting or

send out terms of reference to the from the

specialist to IAPs.

AV asked the following questions:

1. Is a representative of ALMA present at this

meeting?

WS stated that he represents 14 farmers on the

Alma Plato.



9

AV thanked him and stated that he

was worried because he also spoke to

the people from Alma, and they did not

know about this meeting.

He requested that all the farmers from

Alma must also be invited to this

meeting.

2. AV asked if a representative from

SANPARKS is present at the meeting.

3. He stated that he saw on the internet that

impact study on bats was done, and that

there are bats in that cave that are a

threatened species. He asked whether it is

going to be addressed.

AV enquired if the cave is inside the mine

area.

4. Lastly he asked whether a specialist study

been done on the colony of vultures

breeding on a very small portion of the

‘kransberge’ directly north of the mine. He

stated that it is very important that a

specialist study be conducted on the

vultures.

DH asked if WS was going to give feedback to the

members. He also asked for the contact details of

the members of the Alma Plato.

JN responded that they were invited, but that they

were not present.

JN responded that there are 8 species, and it

would be addressed.

JN responded that it is outside the mine area.

JN we will look into that and commission a Cape

Vulture study.

MS stated that regarding the study which WS talked

of earlier, no contact was made with him throughout

this whole process. He stated that they are welcome

to come speak to the people of the Zandrivier valley.

Noted.

EF made the following statements.

1. “It was said that you are still in the scoping

phase, and that you have got 2 months left.

I cannot understand that, you have already

been busy for 2 years on the EIA.”

JN responded with the following statement:

“The EIA consists of 4 processes. The MPRDA

process, the NEMA process, the WULA process

and Waste process. The MPRDA process started

last year July with the application of the mining

right and scoping report being submitted and

EMPR in March 2014. In the NEMA process the

EIA is only starting now. The EIA report will be

submitted in September.”



10

2. He stated that the same goes for the geo-

hydrology tests that were done and still need

to be done. It is going to take 6 months. He

asked how these studies would be

completed in two months before the

documents must be submitted. He asked

Jan Nel to do the studies (throwing

chemicals in and assessing how far they

travel).

3. Ecco estates are busy with their water

license, and have done some studies. It was

found that the Estate’s water comes from

that area.

EF asked the following questions:

1. “In this document it is indicated that there will

be an application for the storage of coal, but

in the presentation no mention was made of

coal.”

2. Was the impact study for surface- and

groundwater done in the normal rain season

or in the flood season?

It is a pity that you do not make it available

before you submit it to the DMR, so that the

questions can go in to the DMR.

The specialist studies from a geo-hydrological

perspective have been ongoing for almost a year

and a half. Assessments have been completed on

farms where permission was granted. We did an

assessment on Randstephne and Donkerpoort.

The only reason why we want to conduct more

assessments is because we want to ensure that

we are covering all the areas. The outstanding

farms on the left will be covered in the next two

months. The quality information gathered will be

entered into the existing model.

Noted.

JVB responded that the storage of coal is a listed

activity in terms of Regulation 544 as indicated in

the Background Information Document. He stated

that ‘the storage of ore or coal’ is a phrase from

the Act. JN stated that the activity covers both ore

and coal together, but it applies to ore in this case,

not the coal sector.

JN responded that “the hydrological study

focused on the entire rain season for the whole

year. Flood lines and flood seasons were

incorporated.”

JN responded that during the scoping phase 12

of the 15 specialist studies were made available,

on the Shangoni website and comments were

received on the reports. We did receive

comments on the reports. He stated that for the

NEMA EIA all the information would be available

before the submission of documentation..



11

3. In terms of the application for section 21(c)

– the deflection of underground water, is that

pre-empting the deflection of water?

4. EF stated that, in terms of the 3D pictures, it

would be good for everybody to see a

section from 360º advantage points of the

dumps (to see the visual impacts).

5. “In the presentation it was said that at the

start of mining, your overburden is not that

much (on slide 20). So if you say in the

beginning it is not that much, it is going to get

more to the back of the mine as you mine.

What is the stripping ratio going to be and

how big is this mountain going to be that you

are going to create?”

EF responded that it is a footprint, but that

he wants to know how high this thing is going

to be.

JN stated that it is: ‘impeding the flow of surface

water.’ It would be relative to the water coming

from the mountain. He explained that if one is

going to impede the flow of water from the

mountain, then the party would have to apply for

a section 21(c) & (i) water license.

DH indicated that “Section 21 (c) refers to surface

water as per the act not underground water.”

JN responded that it forms part of the Visual

Impact Assessment. This would be incorporated

into the study.

JVB responded that on pre-stripping was not

necessary (as displayed on the Presentation).

JVB referred EF to the map displaying the

footprint of the rock dump. This is the final dump.

JVB responded that it can only go as high as

where the pit is, it can’t go higher.

DH stated that if you do a 360º views cape on the

model that these specialists are going to run, it

would show how visible it is going to be.

AN enquired how they are going to determine the

final layout if the specialist studies are not even

completed yet.

JVB responded by saying that he had started off

by saying that it is the proposed layout. He said

that he named the different options that have to go

through the impact assessment to finalize where

it would be. He stated that all those positions had

been provided for the visual assessment and

other assessments. This was done to decide what

the best position will be for it.



12

6. EF then stated that from studying the scale

and picture – they are going to have a

‘lekker’ mountain.

7. EF said that it was stated that there would

be no slime dams, but with the dense media

separation (DMS) approach system in future

“ASSA is looking at backfilling some parts of

the pit.” He enquired where they would get

their backfill material if the mine won’t have

a slimes dam.

8. He stated that there is going to be two

distinct dumps, the one would be for run of

mine that would be sent as is and the other

one would be a dense medium separation

dam. The impact study for the groundwater

pollution must take this into account.

EF stated that he is familiar with the cakes, and

questioned whether the cakes that are created is

rehydratable. He stated that his reason for asking is

because when there are heavy rains coming down,

it will form sludge if it is rehydratable.

9. Lastly EF asked if ASSA would be doing

blasting close to the vultures, and what type

of impact it would have.

DH responded that the height and the extent is

exactly what goes into the model, and then they

run it.

JVB responded that ASSA would get backfill

material from the waste rock dump. Not backfill

like you have on the Platinum mines.

JVB stated that he could put the I&APs’ minds at

ease: “as when material has gone through DMS,

it would be the same size as the material that is

direct shipping, which is -32 + 6. That is the lump

portion which is approximately 65% of the

product.” He further stated that there would also

be a portion which is -6 mm to +1 mm, this would

be dewatered in a belt-press filter, and the

resulting cake would get dumped onto the plant

discard dump. He stressed that there would be no

tailings dam but there would be a pollution control

dam which would capture all the polluted water

that would run from the dumps and the

infrastructure areas. The captured water would be

reused in the mine’s processes, instead of letting

it run into the environment.

JVB responded that the quantity of material that

would be so little compared to the rest of the

dump, that it is not even rated as a risk.

JN added that for the storage of that, ASSA would

need a water license. If the department does not

accept that, the mine would have to make another

decision on how to store it.



13

JN responded that he will make sure that it is

included in the blasting and vibration specialist

study.

EBN stated that they “need to include the scarce

game breeding as well in terms of what you are

planning to do here.”

Noted.

FS asked that a fire risk analysis study be completed

as fires pose a risk.

Noted.

WS stated that he became aware of the Gatkop cave

40 years ago. He stated that he found archaeological

artefacts deep inside on the first floor. He said that

he had also talked to a lot of black people who regard

this cave as a sacred place, they go there for spiritual

reasons (possibly from as far back as 400 – 800

years). It was always and open path, until he recently

noticed that there is a big lock on the gate and a big

sign-board saying that it is a criminal offence to enter

the cave. His questions to ASSA are the following:

“Would you regard it as a criminal offence when

black people go there to conduct their spiritual

activities? Why is ASSA all of a sudden preventing

them from going there?”

WS interjected that there is no contact number on the

sign.

WS stated that there is a little yellow sign board

hanging skew there with the name of a black person,

and on the sign it says that he must be contacted

when they want to enter the cave. There is no

contact number. He enquired what the people must

do when they want to do their spiritual, traditional

activities.

JVB responded that “firstly in terms of the

Limpopo Environmental Act, one needs a permit

to access the cave. Secondly the cave has

caveous diseases and that is the reason why it

was locked. On the sign it says that we can be

contacted if somebody wants to access it.”

Noted.

JVB responded that it is on their land and in terms

of LEDET they must prevent access, and as a

result of the disease in the cave it is for their own

safety that it is being done. JVB also stated that

the religious people who go into the cave, make

fires which affects the protected species of bats in

the cave. We (ASSA) have to try and handle both

of those aspects. We have had a public meeting

with the people who mainly take people into the

cave, and they threatened us. They did not attend

the meeting, so we had to send them a letter

because we had to decide on a management plan

for the cave. They replied that “you (ASSA) is not



14

WS asked whether they have “consulted with the

black community about the closure and the fact that

it is a criminal offence to come there and do their

religious activities?”

WS stated that he was talking about the ‘black’

community, not the ‘bat’ people.

our boss, we report to a higher power, we will do

and break the law as we wish.”

JVB responded that they have done that on

numerous occasions, and that was the response

that they got.

JVB replied that the bat people came out to assist

them because they want to create a management

plan for the cave where the local people can still

utilize it for their religious experiences. However it

needs to be in a controlled environment.

DH requested that feedback be given after the

meeting regarding the meeting about the cave.

AR (introduced himself as the chairperson of

Thabazimbi Municipality public account and stated

that he is also representing Waterberg). He stated

that if someone is doing wrong on finance or in

Thabazimbi, they will be arrested immediately. AR

stated that he was only attending this meeting to

observe. He stated that all problems must be

identified, and that the community present at the

meeting must be able to contribute to the solution of

the problems. He stated that they cannot continue

with the project while problem is still being identified.

It does not help that you come so far to destroy

everything and then you just leave. He said that they

talked about the ancestors, and that the difference

between black and white people must be identified.

Black people believe in ancestors, and the ancestors

are here. He stated that therefore you have to meet

with all the stakeholders of Thabazimbi to deal with

this issue. Every person should be satisfied. After

that we analyse all the problems, and we deal with

all the problems going forward.

TS stated that she was born in Thabazimbi and grew

up there. At the mountain where they have started

EB responded that they are specifically aware of

the points that Mrs Swanepoel mentioned.



15

prospecting, is where Gatkloof’s water comes from.

She stated that “that small area where ASSA

prospected, had already had an impact downwards.”

TS stated that her father has fountains on the farm,

which has already started delivering less water as a

result of the activities in the mountain. She stated

that this area in the mountain is a great source of

water to the surrounding area and as a result is an

important matter.

She asked if they have included the fountains in the

studies as well.

JN responded that it is part of the study.

DH told Mrs Swanepoel that she was welcome to

send through more information regarding the

impacts.

AN stated that in the Presentation on the first slide it

is specified that they must use a comment sheet

attached to the Background Information Document

(BID). He would just like confirmation that everything

they have raised, in whichever way, will be

addressed.

He further stated that on one of the slides it was

indicated 1 million tons per annum starting 2016. He

stated that in terms of timeframes this seems very

unrealistic and not accurate. “There are numerous

duplication of information that is inaccurate in

documents that have been provided to us. This

makes it very hard to understand what is going on

(gave an example of the scoping report which

contained a statement of 336 employees, and now it

said 446 in the BID). There are a lot of inaccuracies

and all of these things have significant impacts.”

AN requested that the information that is given

through to them must be accurate. He also

requested that when documents are supplied to

them with changes, the changes must be

highlighted.

AN also commented that the documentation that

was launched on the Shangoni website, was draft

documents with track changes in. He stated that from

JN replied that the minutes would reflect all the

issues from the meeting.

DH said “we have taken note of your concerns.”

Noted.



16

a review point of view of an I&AP it is extremely

frustrating wondering if the information is accurate.

“From the legal authorizations processes, in terms of

history, you can understand the frustration and

worries of the I&AP’s because in the past, there has

been in things which started illegally. The concern is

that potentially by the end of this year you might have

a mining right. “AN requested that ASSA Steel must

make a vow to all of I&Aps that they will not proceed

without all authorizations in place.

AN requested in terms of legal authorizations, that

JVB could look at the rezoning requirements from

the municipality point of view and also evaluate the

requirement for an air emission license for the

stockpiles.

In terms of the specialist studies, AN requested that

a meeting be held “where all the specialists are

present, and it can be an information sharing session

where all I&AP’s would get specific answers from

specific specialists.”

In terms of the process description AN said, “it is

literally six weeks before you submit the final

documentation for a mining right. The information

that is available at this point in time in terms of what

the impact will be on each individual here, is

completely inadequate. We have no indication in

terms of construction, how frequently you will blast,

the traffic volumes and logistics. The information

submitted thus far is completely insignificant, and

cannot be used to provide a meaning. AN requested

more detail in terms of the process description so

that it more understandable.”

JVB responded that from his perspective and a

mining right perspective; ASSA would not

commence with anything which they do not have

authorization for.

EBN stated that “ASSA needs to live up to their

commitments.”

AN added that some of the activities associated with

mining don’t trigger EIA authorizations.

JVB stated that he “cannot give them any

commitment that we will only start once everything

is in place. I can give you commitment that we



17

won’t start an activity that we don’t have an

authorization for.”

HB stated that the cave could not just be closed off.

If you want to evaluate the impact on the bats, you

cannot close off activities with which they are

involved.

As far as the economic viability / economic process

is concerned, the Life of Mine (LOM) does not

determine that, the impact of the mine is going to

extend another 50, 60 or 100 years. So when we look

at economic impact, we have to look at the entire

duration of that impact and not just LOM. Tourists will

be impacted upon.

HB also stated that Johann said there was a low risk

or minimal risk for material to flow down and

seepage. He stated that there is either a risk or no

risk, it can’t be a minimal risk.

DH stated that they would have to go back to the

community, and the study must be revised to take

the comments into account.

Noted.

DH the minimal risk refers to residual risks.

EBN stated that there is a discussion about 446

people, he asked if they would live there on the mine

site.

He further enquired if there will be a town there,

because his water comes from there.

He also stated that one of the biggest impacts will be

the transport from there to the railway which will lead

to dust.

He stated that there must be more clarity over this at

the moment. He also stated that he suspects that it

is kept ‘velvety’ at the moment so that the people

don’t ask too much questions. EBN also said that he

believes there is an alternative towards Alma, and

that he thinks that it will have less of an impact.

JVB responded “no”.

Once again JVB said no.

JVB responded that he “cannot give him a

response at this point in time”, as he doesn’t even

know, “Transnet does not even know. At this time,

the best information that we have is that it will be

the Thabazimbi line.” JVB stated “that the

problem is that sometimes you have to apply for

some things that you do not even know anything

about yet. Unfortunately if you don’t have a mining

right, then they don’t even look at you. They have

to be convinced that you are down the road and

that you know this is going to be real before they

start committing.”



18

EBN stated that he calculated that the mine is worth

R14 billion, so they have enough money to mitigate.

He stated that “if the mine is going to destroy people

and their businesses, you must expect that we are

going to stand against you as much as we can.” We

have not started yet because we do not have details.

He stated that there has to be detail on the plans for

the roads and transport.

JVB stated that in terms of the whole route out of

the Waterberg, there are five phases which will

improve the capacity of the line from 4 million tons

to 27 million tons.

He also said that they must rely on the fact that

they will keep to their project plan and that the

project plant will halt right there if Meletse does not

get capacity on the line. On the Alma line, for

example, it will only be us on that line. There is a

lot of factors that Transnet has to study for one

mine, but right now it looks as if Transnet is going

to tell us that we are on the Thabazimbi line. JVB

said that he can say for sure, that the road will be

upgraded as will be their responsibility as they will

not be able to get any ore out without an upgrade.

MS stated that the Thabazimbi mine with their

stockpiles along the road is currently using the road,

they are not using the railroad. He enquired why this

is. The Brits road is full of pot holes.

JVB responded that he does not know

Thabazimbi’s background and is therefore

speaking under correction: The ore which is

placed at ‘Meyer’ mine is owned by ArcelorMittal

and it is ArcelorMittal’s responsibility to get it from

there to Vanderbijl. He said that it is not the

Thabazimbi mine, but he may be wrong.

DH stated that they must come to a point where

they can give information from the traffic study.

This must be done so that the I&AP’s can look at

it objectively and possibly understand the impact

better.

JN responded that there is a study that will cover

the roads.

EBN once again asked where the 446 people were

going to stay.

JVB responded that in terms of accommodation

“MM may have a bit more information on that, but

it will basically be Thabazimbi, potentially

Rooiberg and maybe even Alma. We have no

plans to establish a village on the mine.

Thabazimbi’s town planning may have available

space and in the Social and Labour Plan (SLP) it



19

must be look at how they can assist people in

obtaining their homes.”

AR stated that they are not going to take people from

outside Thabazimbi for work, while they have people

in Thabazimbi, who have the relevant qualification,

looking for work. He said that we have to deal with

this issue and we have to provide oversight.

DH Your comment is noted.

JB stated that “it is important to understand where

people are going to live. If you look at the local

infrastructure it cannot serve today’s population. The

Waterberg is a year behind schedule, sewage

treatment plants are already not up to standard.

The economic study which everybody is asking for,

including the chamber of business, must not focus

solely on job creation from a mining perspective, but

also on what job opportunities will fall away.”

JB also stated that “although mining is a primary

sector, the business chamber has quite clearly

established that for the next 20 - 25 year tourism will

keep this town running. Look at what is viable with

mines, not after mines. “

“With reference to the traffic impact study if the

chosen route is used, there will be an impact in town

as well because who would be willing to drive past

400 trucks to get into town. It must be established

how the road network will look and it must be

ensured that the towns business does not suffer from

it.”

JB made reference to the local economic

development plan which was presented to the

municipality, enquired if they could see a copy of it

and as stakeholders have an opportunity to

comment on it.

Noted.

DH indicated that it would be actioned.

PS asked Johann if he was sure that they were going

to upgrade the Thabazimbi Southern Road, and no

other roads. He stated that in the week there were

people measuring the road saying it was for the

JVB asked to who it belongs to.



20

mine. After 6 km on the road, it has been locked for

10 years as it is private property.

PS responded that it belongs to the landowners

(Grobler, himself and his neighbour Richard).

JVB responded that he was not aware that the

road goes through like that.

DH responded that what he thinks is also

important, that “if they do the traffic study they will

have maps which will display exactly what the

roads are, along with its names and numbers.” He

stated that this would ensure that the I&AP’s

would be able to see if is a road that would affect

them.

EF asked regarding the road infrastructure, before it

came to this amount of traffic, if the industrial

engineers looked at alternative means of transport

(i.e. conveyor belts or railway) while they were doing

the feasibility studies. He stated that if they put a

conveyor belt or a railway they can totally enclose

the thing and there will be no dust and no traffic.

EF stated that “if you look at impact studies, he thinks

the decision of cost-effectiveness versus impact

assessment should be weighed against each other.”

He asked who will make the decisions, if it is the

company or the DMR.

EF also asked if they as the public would see the

decision as well as why it was made. He stated that

an industrial engineer will tell you that a truck is the

most useless mode of transport. He stated that he is

asking that they must not just look at it from a capital

cost perspective.

JVB responded “there will be a noise from the

conveyor running constantly.” He stated that they

did look at it, more specifically they looked at cost

of that towards Alma using conveyor and even rail,

and that it is a little bit more complicated coming

through the Thabazimbi’s side.

JVB replied that it will be the company who will

make the decisions and whether it will be

approved will be decided by the DMR.

JVB stated that the question comes down to a

number of aspects, “ASSA needs to find a route

that can be utilized, the second issue is that if they

have a conveyer for example, it will be running for

24 hours and you will be able to hear the conveyor

working. One has to weigh up all those aspects.

At this point in time, depending on what the impact

study tells us, we will still put forward that the

proposed solution at this stage is trucking.”

DH suggested to JN that in terms of the EIA study,

they show all the alternatives that they looked at

and the pros and cons.



21

EF stated that it is exactly what they want, as in the

presentation there was only made mention of trucks

and no alternatives.

MS stated that in this study they cannot only look at

your costs, “you must look at the neighbours’ costs

as well.” He said that they are going to destroy him

with 400 trucks going through there, he stated that

they can buy his farm if they want it.

Noted.

FS stated that this activity is affecting their business

and investors and at face value he can see that this

activity is essentially sterilizing that investment

completely. “It is simply slap-bang, dead centre of

our proposed lodge, it also affects 75% of the view

line from the reserve itself. This essentially is taking

away an entire economic avenue that was there for

us.” He asked if he is “at the moment correct in

assuming that they are at the moment directly at risk

or is there any form of compensating mechanism or

are you taking the entire economic spectrum out of

the loop for us.” He added that of course land values

are directly affected by this as well.

FS also stated that they must not only look at what is

here today, they have to look at future investment

potential of the area, where the activity will

essentially sterilize the area for much longer than 18

years.

JVB stated that he cannot answer the question

because he does not have that type of

background.

He stated that the only thing that he could say is

that, to his knowledge, when the principals bought

the land, they were aware of the prospecting right

on Meletse and everything else.

JN stated that it will definitely be included in the

economic study.

DH stated that a person needs to look at all the

specialist studies to get the bigger picture, it is not

just visual, water quality and the economic study.

TS stated that she would just like to add to what JB

said, “if you look at the business chamber, one can

see that there are a lot of opportunities, but if you go

look at the local government with all these shortages,

meanwhile there is a lot of things that are happening,

but each of us keeps it to ourselves.” She stated that

she thinks it can be a big opportunity for everyone to

work together and make decisions. “But certain

people in certain positions just decide that there will

be a mine, and then he starts building a road, and at

the end of the day it has a big impact on the normal

DH stated than the specialists will sit around a

table once they have all their findings and discuss

everything. He also stated that now is the time for

the I&AP’s to ask all the questions and give their

inputs.

JN responded that the traffic impact study did

consider both. An average was taken of the

amount of people per vehicle that will drive to the

mine. He also stated that morning and afternoon

peak times were taken into account.



22

people because the farmer who has only a 100 ha

farm, his farm will be sold for R 10 000 per ha, and

this in turn will impact his estate planning.” She

requested that this must be kept in mind in the long

term. TS also stated that if the mine should have

accommodation there, it would also impact the

traffic.

It was also stated that the impact of the workers

driving to work and the impact of the transport of the

ore are two different things.

It was enquired if this study has already been done.

EBN stated that the baseline is not the baseline, as

in 2007 they started activities in the area. He stated

that “if you look at the roads it looks like the mine’s

roads, along with the dust. It does not help that you

baseline it now.”

AN stated that the people would like to go to the

specialist and have him explain in layman’s terms

what a baseline study is, what air quality is, etc. Have

offsets been considered?

EBN asked if it the specialist meeting could be held

before the 26th of March (before the EMP is

submitted).

EBN stated that it is less about a reliance with the

specialists. “We do not have the opportunity, you

don’t know who the specialists are, you don’t know

their CV’s, and you don’t know what their experience

is.” He stated that if he could speak to the specialist

and tell them where he is, and ask them specific

JN responded that it is in a draft format.

DH stated that baseline information is important

as it is a screening of the receiving environment.

“It is important to understand what the issues are

when you start with a project or with layouts. Then

studies must be completed with inputs from the

departments and I&AP’s.”

DH asked if AN is asking for a meeting with the

specialists. DH suggested to Jan and Johann that

they must come together and talk about this

meeting. JN said that they are talking about 19

specialists.

JVB stated that he thinks that they have

committed to bring the specialist studies here on

the next public meeting, on the 3rd of May. “We will

definitely do that.”

JN added by saying that this is not the norm to

have specialists defend their specialist studies.

Jan said that he could understand their request,

but that he tried this once a few months ago and it

ended up in a disaster. This was because the



23

questions of concern it would help.. “We are here ask

the questions, but they cannot answer us because

they rely on the specialist study, someone needs to

answer”.

EB contributed that they do not have to bring all 19

at once, but that there are some serious issues that

need to be addressed.

people who were listening to the specialist didn’t

believe what they were saying. the first potential

problem that participants could run into. JN stated

that he had no issue about bringing the specialists

to discuss with the I&AP’s, but was weary of

having all specialists give presentations. He

stated that he would like to have groups which go

with specific questions to specific specialists.

MS stated that the transport specialist must be

present.

MS stated that the Klipgat T-junction is a blind

corner. He said that he would like to see how they

get a truck in there.

EBN responded to this by saying: “this is the chicken

and egg, tell us what you are going to do, then we

can raise issues. We need to have a definitive view

of what is happening and then we can respond.”

JN responded that he saw the draft traffic report

and that “it is a good study which brings all the

impacts and is showing the number of vehicles

etc. and it will address all the concerns related to

traffic.”

JN responded that he agrees, the safety risk

regarding the vehicles on the roads have been

addressed in the traffic-study.

JVB stated that if the Traffic study shows issues

they would indicate mitigating aspects such as to

move the point of connection and the length of the

sight lines, because ASSA still need to go to

SANRAL to apply.

DH stated that “specialist studies get triggered

through significant issues, therefore the IAP’s

must write down their issues so that they can ask

the specialists at the next public meeting.”

CB stated that “there are people present at this

meeting that do all their business here, and there are

too many what if’s.” He also added that “the

presentation that was presented did not really say

anything to allow people to make a constructive

decision about their futures.” He stated that he thinks

that a lot of homework still needs to be done. “This

thing started in 2007, and this is all that has been

done to date, I don’t know how they will start mining

in 2016. There are too many things of: if this

happens, then this will happen.” He stated that there



24

are not enough constructive answers, and that trust

has been an issue since the beginning of this

process.

AV asked that the reports be made available on the

internet so that the IAPs could go through it prior to

submitting.

Noted.

AN stated that “this is more for the I&AP’s to

understand, in terms of getting a mining right – there

are three main documents which form your legal

rights. Those document are: Mining Work

Programme (MWP), Social Labour Plan (SLP) and

the Environmental Management Programme (EMP).

You need to adhere to those three documents, to

ensure that you mine legally and in an acceptable

way as per your environmental authorizations.” He

stated that in terms of this process, the SLP and the

MWP are already finished. “Theoretically the MWP

must state how they are going to mine, how they are

going to process, how many people are going to be

there, labour cost, revenue etc. So based on the fact

that this MWP is finished and was submitted in

September, I would like to understand a few things

that are in this document:

1. What was in the MWP in terms of

transportation?

2. How many kilometres did you quote?

3. What environmental costs did you add for

premature closing?

4. How that is calculated and is that in the

documentation?

5. What is your schedule in terms of when you

will start construction?

JVB responded that the trucking was included as

well as the cost of trucking (no route was

included).

JVB replied 40 km.

JVB responded that it is the one that he

calculates, which is not the same as the one that

they calculate, and it is R 54 000 000.

JVB responded that it is in the documentation in

the MWP, and they give a very specific format in

which it has to be calculated.

JVB responded approximately 2016.



25

6. Do we get a copy of that document?

7. May I have a copy of the document

excluding the financials?”

JVB responded “no, you can request a copy from

DMR. The DMR very specifically stated that we

may not give you a copy of the document.”

JVB responded that he would consider it, and get

back to him.

HB stated that he thinks that they are being against

each other. “We are looking at an existing life and we

are potentially going to stuff it up through incorrect

activities.” He stated that “we are not looking at

today, but the next day and the next day.” He stated

that “you (Johan van Breda) stand there and you say

no, well then I say we say no, and the hell with you.”

CY stated that “you want us to give you all our

financials and all our pertinent information about our

water and our usage thereof, but you cannot give us

any sort of guarantee that that information won’t go

anywhere else. That was said at the last meeting,

that the quantities would stay in-house and any new

information that you got out of those studies would

be given back to us. So what is the point? Why

should we help you if you are not prepared to help

us back?”

CY said to “forget about that stuff, we are talking

about the economic information.”

JVB responded that there is a misunderstanding

in that sense. In terms of the MWP he could not

give that out. He said that he was very clearly told

by the DMR (which is his regulator) that he may

not give out that information as it is not an

approved document. He stated that IAPs were

welcome to apply for it from the DMR.

JVB responded that he would give them the same

type of detail that they give him. “You will not give

me your detailed information, you will tell me this

is your business, and so forth, then I can share

with that same detail of information with you. It is

a question of we sharing all the baseline

information and our process, you are requesting

an economic impact study, and in order to do that

study efficiently and properly we need that

information from you otherwise we will base it on

incorrect information.”

He stated that the water studies’ information

would be given back.



26

CY stated that it was also said that “you couldn’t

guarantee that it wouldn’t be shared.”

CY stated that he would be happy with that.

JVB responded that “any study that we do, you

get information and feedback on. I have got no

issues with providing information from the geo-

hydrological study, and for that matter, any other

baseline study.”

JVB said that if he did say that he cannot

guarantee that it wouldn’t go anywhere else, those

studies get compiled and would not specifically

say that: “Mr York earns R X million per month.”

DH stated that “a non-disclosure agreement

should be created so that the numbers are only

used in the modelling for crunching.”

DH closed the meeting. He thanked the people

who contributed with the technical information and

all the other people who took part.

Documents

AQUILA STEEL (S AFRICA) (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED · PDF fileKhosi Mohlahlo Shangoni Management Services KM ... CINEMA HALL OF THE KUMBA IRON ORE THABAZIMBI MINE, 10:00 6 EBN stated, in