PROGRESS REPORT

THE MANAGEMENT OFACID MINE DRAINAGE (AMD) IN THE WITWATERSRAND MINING REGION

Portfolio Committee:Water and Environment

Cape Town, May 2012

2

Content of Presentation

1. Background / Introduction

2. Current Mine Water Status Per Basin

3. Ingress Management

4. Technical solutions and Progress

5. Public Participation and EIA Process

6. Budget and Funding

7. Linking Short and Long Term Solutions

8. The Way Forward

3

1. Background / Introduction

• Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on AMD first convened on 1 Sep 2010

• DWA and DMR DGs co-chaired a Team of Experts (DWA, DMR, CGS, CSIR, WRC, MINTEK and, academic reviewers) to conduct a situation assessment

• ToE findings in Report: ”Mine Water Management in the Witwatersrand Gold Fields with Special Emphasis on Acid Mine Drainage” (IMC AMD Report) accepted by IMC

• Cabinet approved IMC AMD Report on 9 Feb 2011

• DWA tasked to implement certain recommendations in IMC AMD Report

• DWA appointed TCTA as Implementing Agent on 6 Apr 2011

• TCTA appointed PSPs to undertake Due Diligence on Wits AMD – report finalized on 7 July 2011

• Ministerial directive – 6 April 2011• Emergency works in Witwatersrand gold fields comprising:

Installation of pumpsConstruction of water treatment plantsRelease treated water into river system

• Obtain environmental and regulatory approvals• Funding from DWA via National Treasury • Advise and assist DWA with O&M model• Minister may direct to do more

7

2. Current Mine Water Status Per Basin

BasinMine water

level(mbs)

ECL (mbs) Est. date to ECL

Eastern Apr 2012 = 560.9 290 Jun 2014

CentralMarch 2012 =

334.2174 (400)? Jun-Jul 2013

Western At surface 160ECL currently breached resulting in surface decant

Figure 1: WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS (m amsl) AT ERPM SWV SHAFT

CENTRAL MINE-VOID (CENTRAL BASIN, as on 18 May'12)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2009-08-01

2009-12-01

2010-04-03

2010-08-03

2010-12-04

2011-04-05

2011-08-06

2011-12-06

2012-04-07

2012-08-07

2012-12-08

2013-04-09

2013-08-10

Wa

ter

lev

el e

lev

ati

on

(m

am

sl)

18 May'12: Depth to water level: 334.23mfrom shaft collar ERPM-SWV; 155m to ECL.

Ecological Control Level @ 1467m amsl (or -174m bgl)

Scheme completion date (30-06-2013), i.e. Pumps On! For the water table to breach this level, a water table rise of 0.36 m/d is required.

Extrapolated date when water table willbreached ECL under normal climaticconditions; Jun/Jul 2013 - daily rise0.33m/d (Average o/f 2011-2012 HC)

Actual water table measurements by DRD, DWA & Gold Reef City.

Gold Reef City Museum : 1484m amsl.

Figure 2: WATER LEVEL ELEVATION (m amsl) AT SUB-NIGEL #1 SHAFTEASTERN MINE-VOID (EASTERN BASIN)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2009-10-01

2010-01-31

2010-06-03

2010-10-03

2011-02-03

2011-06-05

2011-10-06

2012-02-05

2012-06-07

2012-10-07

2013-02-07

2013-06-09

2013-10-10

2014-02-09

2014-06-12

Wa

ter

lev

el e

lev

ati

on

(m

am

sl)

Ecological Control Level @ 1280 m amsl (-314 m bgl at SN#1).

With Oct'11 - Feb'12trend of 0.34 m/d, ECLwill be breached by midMay 2014.

19-04-2012: Depth to water level:560.90m from shaft collar Sub-Nigel#1; 255 m to ECL.

Actual water table monthly measurements by GOLD 1 and DWA (+Feb'12).

Extrapolated water level trend based on average rise during last 5 months.

3. Ingress Management

Prevention of IngressDMR appointed Council for

Geoscience to:• Identify and stop ingress in 7 Basins,

including the Western, Central and Eastern

• Construct the Florida canal to prevent ingress into the Central Basin

• Investigate the feasibility of additional ingress control measures in the Central Basin

• Investigate the role of mine residue deposits and open pits as sources of ingress (Western Basin)

4. Technical Solutions and Progress

• Design lifespan: 30 to 50 years – concrete structures• High-quality submersible pumps and pipe-work: low

maintenance, 30 year lifespan• Short-term solution to serve as first phase of long-term

solution• Plant capacity: ECL maintained even during high inflows• Site selection: taking long-term solution into account

Implementation of Immediate Solution•Upgrade Rand Uranium treatment plant - cater for up to 36Ml/d•Implementation agreement with RU•Target date – May 2012•Discharge treated water to Tweelopiespruit•Co-disposal of sludge to Wes Wits Pit•Operating rule: solo until June 2013 then parallel with short-term solution until ECL

Implementation of short term solution•New HDS plant to be erected on Rand Uranium property – capacity 35 ml/d•Installation of new pumps and pipe work in Rand Uranium Shaft 8•Treated water transferred by pipeline to Tweelopiespruit•Sludge disposal at West Wits Pit - duel pipeline•Commissioning date – June 2013•ECL level 165 m – February 2014

• New HDS plant next to South West Vertical Shaft – capacity 84 Ml/pd

• CRG Ritz pumps • Treated water transferred pipeline to Elsburg Spruit• Sludge co-disposal with DRD Gold • Commissioning date – April 2013• ECL level 174 m/400

• New HDS plant at Grootvlei – 110 Ml/pd• Installation of new pumps and pipe work • Treated water transferred to Blesbok Spruit• Sludge co-disposal at Daggafontein TSF via duel lines • Commissioning date – June 2014• ECL level 290m/ mines ?

Water Quality Variable

Average water quality across all three Basins

HDS plant effluent standard

Sulphates 4344 mg/ℓ 2400 mg/ℓ

pH 4 6-9

Iron 768 mg/ℓ <1 mg/ℓ

Aluminium 35 mg/ℓ <1 mg/ℓ

Manganese 127 mg/ℓ <3 mg/ℓ

Uranium 0.2 mg/ℓ 0.05 mg/ℓ

5. Public Participation and EIA Process

• Public meeting notices advertised in newspapers: 3-22 Feb 2012

• Site notices: 14-15 Feb 2012• 14 Feb 2012 - Authorities forum meeting • 22 Feb 2012 - Key Stakeholders Meeting• Open days: 25 Feb, 3 March, 10 March 2012• Ongoing one-on-one consultations with downstream

landowners and elected community representatives

• EIA will be required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act

• A waste licence is required in terms of National Environmental Management: Waste Act

• An integrated application has been made to DEA in terms of section 24L of NEMA and section 44 of the Waste Act

• Meeting held with DEA to clarify the process

18 October 2011 • EIA application was

submitted• Ref #:

DEA/EIA/0000498/2011 & 12/12/20/2403

12 December 2011

• Authorities Site Visit

3 February 2012

• EIA Interest Group meeting

22 February 2012

• Public Open Days:• 25 February 2012

– WB• 3 March 2012 – CB• 10 March 2012 -

EB

25 Feb – 10 Mar 2012

• Scoping Report for public review

April

• EIA for Review

November

6. Budget and Funding

Description Budget Amount Expediture to Mar-12

Apr-12 to Sept-12

Oct-12 to Mar-13

Apr-13 to Sept-13

Oct-13 to Mar-14

Immediate solution 25 25Short term solutionWestern Basin 195 12 65 118Central Basin 210 12 126 72Eastern Basin 240 84 144 12Engineering services 62 28 12 12 6 4Enviroment 9 2 3 2 1TCTA costs 37 8 8 8 8 5Total : Excl Contingency & Escalation 778 85 213 297 160 22Contingency 86 8 38 32 6 2Escalation 60 18 18 12 12Total Budget required 924 93 269 347 178 37Budget available 433 283 150Budget suplus (short fall) -491 190 -119.4 -347 -178 -37

Budget in R millions

AMD1 Operation & Maintenance Cost

DescriptionBase Dated - July'11

Monthly Annual(R'million) (R'million)

* Western Basin: Immediate (15 months) 5

Western Basin: Short Term 4 48

Central Basin: Short Term 7 81

Eastern Basin: Short Term 7 81

Operations & Maintenance 22 210

* Note: Pumping at the Immediate Solution will cease after 15 months once the ECL level has been reached.

7. Linking Short-term Solution with Long-term Solution

30

Feasibility Study for AMD Long Term-Solution

• A Feasibility Study (FS) was another recommendation by the ToE, with objective being:• Investigate and recommend a feasible long-term

solution to the AMD problems emerging in the study area, in order to ensure long term water supply security and continuous fitness for use of Vaal River water

The FS will therefore assess suitability of the short-term measures, & in what way they can be incorporated or adapted into long-term solution

31

Progress on the Feasibility Study

• PSP team appointed in January 2012.• Contract period 13 Months until 28

February 2013.• Study registered with National Treasury’s

PPP unit.• Processes followed to allow conventional

implementation as well as implementation through Public Private Partnership or Public-Public Partnership.

32

Long-term feasibility study (continue)

• Study status:

o Team with expertise mobilised.o Data collection continuing.o Key stakeholders Identified & engagement well

in advance.o Two Study management meetings held.o Consultative meetings held with individual key

stakeholders e.g. Federation for Sustainable Environment, Universities, Rand Water, Treasury, etc.

o Stakeholder workshop held on 2 & 3 May 2012.

33

Long-term feasibility study (continue)

Initial findings regarding Implementation:

•Serious risk that Vaal River requirement will not be met if Conventional project implementation processes are followed after the completion of the Feasibility Study.•Alternate Implementation methods are being considered:

o e.g. parallel activities such as EIA, Request for Proposals (RFP), etc. are being looked into.

•Close coordination with National Treasury will be required for any PPP processes

34

Long-term feasibility study (continue)

First steps for Request for Proposals:

•Call for registration is in the process of being issued in order to enable possible service providers to register interest of providing services so that:

o Possible Treatment Technologies/Options are captured,

o Process is transparent for all interested & with solutions,

o Possible capital & operational financial models can start being conceptualised

o Possible management institutional models can start being imagined

•Care is taken that this call for registration will not compromise prescribed procurement processes.

35

Long-term feasibility study (continue)

Status of deliverables:

First drafts of reports submitted for consideration by Project Management:– Inception Report.– Assessment of water Quality and Quantity Trends of the Wits Mine voids.– Report on the current status of the Management of AMD.

The Feasibility Study’s progress in relation to the ToR, is on track

• Monitoring of water quality and quantity on surface and in basins should be upgraded to ensure better decision-making• Implementation of all short term solutions should be executed strictly according to agreed timelines• Budget constraints will have to be addressed with urgency: bridging the short- and long-term solutions to create acceptable business model• Request for Proposals and Feasibility Study will be expedited

8. The Way Forward