Unlicensed Coal Mines Supplying ESKOM

[LazyLion]

Eskom has been buying coal from 19 South African coal mines which do not have water licences, for at least two years, it was reported on Monday.

Under the National Water Act it is illegal for a mine to start up and operate without a water licence, Beeld reported.

According to the newspaper, Eskom has blamed the department of water affairs, and said the water licences should be issued.

"Between November 2012 and March 31, 2013, none of the providers (at the department of water affairs) who lodged applications for a water licence received that licence," Eskom spokeswoman Hilary Joffe told Beeld.

Eskom had in the past reportedly repeatedly stressed that it bought coal only from legitimate mines which met all environmental requirements.

Beeld reported that, in reply to a parliamentary question about Eskom, Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba said it was prerequisite for Eskom that the mines from which it purchased coal complied "fully" with environmental legislation.

The department had since acknowledged that some mines were without licences and were illegally mining coal.

However, it argued that the water affairs department was struggling with an administrative backlog which prevented it from timeously issuing licences.

Water affairs spokesman Sputnik Ratau told Beeld nobody should mine without a water licence. "It's illegal."

Eskom reportedly refused to give Beeld the names of the offending mines.


Source : Sapa /pk/fg/clh
Date : 15 Apr 2013 08:27

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Lovely. Play the blame game, it's the new SA sport.

 

[Sl8er]

I'm no expert on the goings-on of these departments, but this is how I see it. I may be wrong, but I'm sure this applies to a number of departments/situations (if not at least one) across this country.

Newspaper: Hey! What's going on here?! You're buying from unlicensed mines!
Government (Eskom): Sure, some of the mines have no water license, so what?
Government (Water Affairs): This is illegal
Government (Eskom): But no one's gotten licenses in a while, it's Water Affairs' (Government's) fault! Also, we may have lied a little about buying from unlicensed mines previously...but what the hey, right?
Government (Public Enterprises): Eskom has to abide by the rules
Government (Eskom): But Water Affairs suck!
Government (Water Affairs): It's still illegal.
Government: *shrugs shoulders*

What might possibly then happen:

Government: *anc sees an opportunity to make some money*

Government (Water Affairs): Well Eskom, we will have to fine you big time
Government (Eskom): Hit me!
Government (Water Affairs): R100bn!
Government (Eskom): Whatever! *either incorporates fine into rising electricity prices or finds some other way to extort it from the public*
Government (Eskom): Here's your money! No problem!
Government (Water Affairs): Thank you kindly *hands over 70% of fine to anc* (since the line between state and party no longer exists)

Eskom continues to use unlicensed mines and Water Affairs turns a blind eye once more.

In conclusion: Rules/laws and regulations are broken AND the government (read anc) ends up with a sizeable amount of money...and what for? For arguing with itself.

This whole thing reads like the mind of a schizophrene raping some poor person, while assuring them it's someone else.

 

[dlk001]

The water authorities’ inability to deal with mine applications backlog is the main reason that a huge number of mines are being operated “illegally” without water licences.

“illegally” because

- most of these companies are not actually undertaking any illegal water use in the interim as they are entitled to rely on and continue with an existing lawful use that predated the National Water Act of 1998

- the granting of mineral rights does not include water rights. DMR is responsible for granting mining licence according to an approved Environmental Management Programme. The DWA is responsible for granting a water licence.

 

[Sneeky]

The water authorities’ inability to deal with mine applications backlog is the main reason that a huge number of mines are being operated “illegally” without water licences.

“illegally” because

- most of these companies are not actually undertaking any illegal water use in the interim as they are entitled to rely on and continue with an existing lawful use that predated the National Water Act of 1998

- the granting of mineral rights does not include water rights. DMR is responsible for granting mining licence according to an approved Environmental Management Programme. The DWA is responsible for granting a water licence.

Fine and well but what are water affairs doing about, or the rest of their mandate?

Its illegal to mine without a license, so either issue the licenses or stop them.
What about effluent, if water affairs is so blase about licenses I am sure they don't give a hoot about the environment either?

Sputnik sounds shocked that this is going on which is odd, surely in 2 years they have done audits on these facilities, or not?

 

[Vrotappel]

Water affairs is just waiting for the right palms to get greased.

 

[dlk001]

Fine and well but what are water affairs doing about, or the rest of their mandate?

Department of water affairs “DWA” is tightening laws on sustainable water use. They introduced changes to the Water Act which meant existing mining companies had to submit new applications to comply. The DWA cannot stop existing companies from mining as a result of their backlog in processing applications.

In June 2010, the department of water affairs “DWA” set a target of March 2011 to eradicate the backlog. Since 2010, the backlog has reduced from 129 mines to below 45. According to them, the process is slower than the target of March 2011 because some of the applications are referred back to applicants for substantiation, additional information and to conduct public participation. These applications re-enter the system and add to the backlog.

What about effluent,

Effluent is an aspect of mine water quality management which must meet regulatory environmental compliance and mining licence commitments. All operating mines must have a mining licence which includes an approved Environmental Management Programme (EMP).

if water affairs is so blase about licenses I am sure they don't give a hoot about the environment either?

Department of Minerals is tightening laws applied during mine life cycle and closure. As I write this, one of our mines is closing in 2016. The budget for closure is increasing because the DMR wants to ensure sustainable closure for a period of up to 35yrs post mining. This was not done in the past as seen with issue of Acid Mine Drainage.

 

[Sneeky]

Thanks for the clarity but on this bit below.

Department of water affairs “DWA” is tightening laws on sustainable water use. They introduced changes to the Water Act which meant existing mining companies had to submit new applications to comply. The DWA cannot stop existing companies from mining as a result of their backlog in processing applications.

Depends, what time frames were allowed for companies to complete this process, was it 'reasonable', or did the DWA get ahead of itself.

Looking at the water act (of 1998) which is I gather what you are referring to, and the documentation required I see most of the versions of the docs are dated 2009.
Just looking at the docs it seems hard to believe it would take 2 years to submit/process/ or even issue a license on that.
Maybe I am missing something.

 

[dlk001]

Depends, what time frames were allowed for companies to complete this process, was it 'reasonable', or did the DWA get ahead of itself.

I think you described the problem better.

It is possible that many mining companies leave it until late to submit their applications and/or the DWA does not have enough people to deal with the influx of applications.

Looking at the water act (of 1998) which is I gather what you are referring to, and the documentation required I see most of the versions of the docs are dated 2009. Just looking at the docs it seems hard to believe it would take 2 years to submit/process/ or even issue a license on that. Maybe I am missing something.

Given the bad reputation the mining sector has with respect to water usage, the steps involved in accessing a Water Licence application is a rigorous evaluation of the application against strict environmental criteria.

Many times, the DWA must satisfy themselves on the quality of the information supplied, honesty of the intentions, impacts on other parties, public participation process (including farmers).

Small-Junior scale miners tend struggle with acceptable technical information required by the DWA. As a result, the application will be sent back/forth until DWA is satisfied.

Big companies are the largest users of water and their applications tend to take longer because the impacts are larger.

The list of information required by DWA to obtain a water licence contains technical information relating to:

- Volume and purpose of the water required
- Water balance analysis covering the area of water usage
- Hydrology reports by acceptable consultants
- Detailed geology of the area
- Detailed borehole census of the area and the area of recharge with 1km
- Information relating to surface water discharges
- Monitoring programme
- Potential impacts on groundwater and surface water quality etc

 

[zippy]

Thatcher would have known how to deal with this

PS. hardly a month in hell, and I understand 3 furnances have already been shut-down