Review of the groundwater documemtation related to the proposed Yzermyn Colliery

The review identifies significant contradictions and scientific gaps in the groundwater and wetland assessments for the proposed Yzermyn Colliery. It argues that the mine is likely to decant post-closure and that the dewatering process will affect groundwater-dependent ecosystems and springs. The author criticizes the amended EIAR for making scientifically unproven claims about the limited impact on wetlands and the speed of stabilization, while noting that the EcoPartners report on downstream water usage is poorly motivated and fails to quantify key impacts.

• The author disputes claims in the amended EIAR that the most significant risk occurs after 10 years of operation, noting that the model used was run in steady state and is not time-dependent. Furthermore, the author asserts that a maximum 9 m drop in water levels in the upper aquifer is significant for wetlands.
• There is a high likelihood that the mine will decant post-closure, with expected sulphate values of 1000 mg/L. Because 67% of Yzermyn coal samples are classified as potentially acid generating, the decanting water could be acidic and likely requires treatment.
• The review identifies contradictions in the SAS wetland documentation; while a 2014 letter describes certain wetlands as 'highly marginal' with 'extremely limited' conservation importance, the corresponding SAS 2014 report assigned these same wetlands the highest Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) score of A.
• The Delta H and WSP groundwater models both indicate that protected areas, wetlands, and springs will be affected by dewatering cones of depression, although they differ slightly on maximum drawdown (Delta H predicts 9 m and 50 m; WSP predicts 10 m and 55 m for shallow and deep aquifers respectively).
• The EcoPartners report on downstream water usage is described as 'poorly written and motivated' because it fails to quantify the impacts of dewatering and post-closure flooding on groundwater and surface water bodies, and relies on the outdated WARMS database.
• The review notes that the SAS 2014 report failed to assess the impacts of the 'best environment option' (which changed the surface layout) and did not account for the potential impacts of mine dewatering on NFEPA wetlands.

APA

Dennis, I. (2016). Review of the groundwater documemtation related to the proposed Yzermyn Colliery. Centre for Environmental Rights. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Annexure-G-Dennis-Review.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Dennis, Ingrid. Review of the groundwater documemtation related to the proposed Yzermyn Colliery. Centre for Environmental Rights, 2016. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Annexure-G-Dennis-Review.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Dennis |first1=Ingrid |title=Review of the groundwater documemtation related to the proposed Yzermyn Colliery |publisher=Centre for Environmental Rights |date=August 2016 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Annexure-G-Dennis-Review.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{dennis2016review, author = {Dennis, Ingrid}, title = {{Review of the groundwater documemtation related to the proposed Yzermyn Colliery}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2016}, month = aug, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Annexure-G-Dennis-Review.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }