Review of the groundwater documemtation related to the proposed Yzermyn Colliery

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

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 acidic water and that the drawdown of the shallow aquifer will negatively impact groundwater-dependent ecosystems and wetlands, contradicting claims in the amended EIAR that such impacts would be limited or mimic drought conditions.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • 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. The author asserts that a maximum 9 m drop in water levels in the upper aquifer is significant for wetlands.
  • There is a high probability that the mine will decant water 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 is likely to be acidic and require treatment.
  • The review identifies contradictions in the SAS wetland documentation; while a 2014 report assigned the highest ecological importance and sensitivity (EIS) scores to certain wetlands, a subsequent letter described these same wetlands as 'highly marginal' with 'extremely limited' conservation importance.
  • The author argues that the Delta H and WSP models both indicate that protected areas, wetlands, and springs will be affected by dewatering cones of depression, contradicting the amended EIAR's suggestion that wetlands would not be lost.
  • The EcoPartners report on downstream water usage is criticized for being poorly written and for relying on the WARMS database, which the author states is not up to date and typically underestimates water use.

Cite the original document

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-P.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-P.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-P.pdf?x21779 |access-date=23 October 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-P.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated