groundwater scoping report

Report No: iLEH-EIMS DAN 10-15

JANUARY 2016

Environmental Impact Management Services (Pty) Ltd

Sungu Sungu Gas (Pty) Ltd

Dannhauser Exploration Right Application

GROUNDWATER SCOPING REPORT

iLEH 3 Herbert Baker St Sharon Park 1496 PO Box 343 Dunnottar 1590 e: [email protected] c: 083 447 8377 t: 011 363 2926 f: 086 672 9900

www.ileh.co.za

EIMS – Sungu Sungu Gas - Dannhauser Exploration Application – Groundwater Scoping Report

January 2016 I

INDEMNITY AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO THIS REPORT

The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on the author’s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as available information. The report is based on assessment techniques, which are limited by information available, time and budgetary constraints relevant to the type and level of investigation undertaken and Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc reserve the right to modify aspects of the report including the recommendations if and when new information may become available from on-going research, monitoring, further work in this field, or pertaining to the investigation.

Although Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc exercises due care and diligence in rendering services and preparing documents, Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc accepts no liability, and the client, by receiving this document, indemnified Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses arising from or in connection with the services rendered, directly or indirectly by Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc and by the use of the information contained in this document.

This report must not be altered or added to without the prior written consent of the author.

Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc reserves the copy right of this document. The format and content of this report may not be copied, reproduced or used in any other projects than those related to the Sungu Sungu Gas Dannhauser Exploration Right Application. Where information from this document is used in other reports, presentations or discussions, full reference and acknowledgement must be given to Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc. These conditions also refer to electronic copies of this report, which may be supplied for the purposes of record keeping or inclusion as part of other reports.

Irene Lea M.Sc. Pr. Sci. Nat 13 January 2016


January 2016 II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A hydrocensus undertaken during the scoping phase of the geohydrological study indicates that 8 private boreholes are present on the farms on which exploration wells may be drilled. Three of these boreholes are currently used for groundwater abstraction.

Groundwater is used for domestic and livestock watering purposes. One of the landowners indicated that groundwater is not used extensively on a regional scale. Water is sourced mainly from perennial rivers and streams as well as from dams.

The depth to groundwater strikes in available borehole information varies between 8.5 and 10.4m below surface.

The yields of the private boreholes identified during the hydrocensus are not known. Based on the fact that the boreholes are fitted with a hand pump and wind pumps, it is assumed that groundwater is abstracted at rates below 1 l/s.

Based on available information, it is thought that three aquifers are present, namely a shallow weathered, a deeper fractured rock and an alluvial aquifer.

The potential activities associated with the project that may impact on groundwater, include the following:

Using groundwater a s water supply to the project.

The impact of spills within the drill pads on groundwater quality.

Based on the results of the scoping study, the following geohydrological sensitivity ratings area assigned:

Sensitivity Rating Motivation

Low

Based on a first approximation of the zone of impact around the proposed exploration wells, a 2km radius zone is flagged as a possible zone of impact on groundwater levels and quality as a result of the Sungu Sungu project. This is considered a worst-case scenario based on available information and the author’s experience. The zone of influence will be confirmed during the EIA phase of the project.

Low

Information from the NGDB suggests that up to 40% of the boreholes listed in the database is associated with the dolerite intrusions. The contact zone between the dolerite and the host rock may be fractured and faulted, resulting in the formation of preferential groundwater flow paths and enhanced aquifer conditions. This needs to be confirmed during the EIA phase of the project.

High

The groundwater capture zone for the private boreholes identified during scoping is assumed to be 1km around each borehole. Any activity within this zone may result in deterioration in private borehole performance. This assumption is considered a worst case scenario, based on the author’s experience in similar conditions and will be confirmed during the EIA phase of the project.

High

Although the alluvial aquifer is not laterally extensive, it is expected to have a higher permeability compared to the underlying hard rock aquifers. This aquifer is also expected to play a more significant role in the interaction between groundwater and surface water. For this reason, it could act as preferential groundwater flow paths and is especially susceptible to groundwater contamination associated with spills within the drill pads.

Very High

The yield of private boreholes, especially those that are used for domestic and stock watering supply by landowners, may be affected by the project. The identified boreholes may also be vulnerable to potential contamination originating from the current and potential future target areas. This must be confirmed in the EIA phase of the project.


January 2016 III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

2 LEGAL CONTEXT – GROUNDWATER ................................................................... 1

2.1 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 ...................................... 1

2.2 National Environmental Management Act, 2002 ....................................................... 1

2.2.1 National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 .......................................... 1

2.3 National Water Act, 1998 .......................................................................................... 3

3 BASELINE GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 4

3.1 Geology .................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Occurrence of boreholes and springs ....................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Hydrocensus ............................................................................................................ 9

3.2.2 National Groundwater Database Boreholes ............................................................ 12

3.3 Aquifers present ..................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Ambient groundwater quality .................................................................................. 12

4 ISSUES RELATING TO GEOHYDROLOGY .......................................................... 16

4.1 Activities that may impact on groundwater .............................................................. 16

4.1.1 Using groundwater as water supply to the project .................................................. 16

4.1.2 Surface sources to groundwater contamination ...................................................... 16

4.1.3 Waste streams ....................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Residual impacts .................................................................................................... 17

4.3 Potential cummulative impacts ............................................................................... 17

4.4 Sensitivity map – Geohydrology ............................................................................. 17

5 PROVISIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................ 20

6 PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA .................................................................................... 21

6.1 Description of the Affected Environment or Baseline .............................................. 21

6.2 Impact Identification and Assessment..................................................................... 21

6.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 22

6.4 Terms of Reference for the Geohydrological Specialist Study ................................ 22

7 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...................................................................... 23

8 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 23

9 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project location map ........................................................................................... 1

Figure 2 Geological setting ............................................................................................... 6

Figure 3 Photos indicating the conditions around exploration wells ................................ 10

Figure 4 Hydrocensus borehole location map ................................................................. 11

Figure 5 Major cation and anion concentrations in groundwater ..................................... 14

Figure 6 Proportional metal concentrations in groundwater ............................................ 15

Figure 7 Groundwater sensitivity map ............................................................................. 19

LIST OF TABLES


January 2016 IV

Table 1 Typical geological cross section ........................................................................... 5

Table 2 Hydrocensus borehole information ...................................................................... 7

Table 3 NGDB boreholes present in the vicinity of the project .......................................... 7

Table 4 Ambient groundwater quality ............................................................................. 13

Table 5 Sensitivity rating: Geohydrology (EIMS methodology)........................................ 17

Table 6 Provisional groundwater impact assessment .................................................... 20

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Hydrocensus information

Appendix 2 Certificate of analysis

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED

BH Borehole

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DMR Department of Mineral Resources

DWS Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation

EC Electrical Conductivity

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPR Environmental Management Programme Report

GN Government Notice

iLEH Irene Lea Environmental and Hydrogeology cc

mamsl metres above mean sea level

MPRDA Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002

NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 2002

NEM:WA National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act, 2008

NGDB National Groundwater Database

NS Not specified

NWA National Water Act, 1998

PASA Petroleum Agency South Africa

SWL Static Water Level

TDS Total Dissolved Solids


January 2016 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Sungu Sungu Gas (Pty) Ltd (Sungu Sungu) is in the process of applying for an exploration right for oil, gas and condensate (hydrocarbons) through the Petroleum Agency South Africa (PASA) over several farms in the vicinity of Dannhauser, KwaZulu-Natal. The project covers an area of approximately 7763 ha on eleven farms, as indicated on Figure 1.

The objective of the proposed exploration programme is to evaluate the potential for hydrocarbon development within an area that was previously explored. The sandstones within the Vryheid Formation of the Karoo Supergroup have historically tested positive for hydrocarbons with varying saturation.

The proposed gas exploration programme will be completed within 3 years and will entail the following activities, based on information presented in the Exploration Works Programme:

Data acquisition, including geological maps and information on previously drilled wells. This activity will take approximately 3 months to complete.

Review and analysis of data obtained over a 3-month period.

Geological mapping of the regional seismic lines to identify leads or prospects over a period of 3 months.

Acquisition of gravity and magnetic geophysical data for basin analysis. This phase will include the interpretation and processing of the data and will take approximately 6 months to complete.

Geochemical and soil sampling for hydrocarbon tracing over a 3-month period.

Acquisition of 2D seismic data to evaluate potential hydrocarbon traps. This will entail several traverses totalling 80km in length. This work will be completed over a 9-month period.

Integration of the data obtained into the existing geological models and compilation of a report based on the results of the investigation. This will take 3 months to complete.

Drilling of 5 wells to twin the historical wells where natural gas discoveries were made. The locations of these wells are indicated on Figure 2. This phase is expected to be completed within 6 months. The core obtained from the drilling programme will be analysed for the presence of hydrocarbons as well as to determine the physical properties of the rocks. Petrophysical and volumetric analysis will be completed on the core samples to provide information on the potential producibility of the expected reservoir formation(s). The typical well size is NQ (75.7mm diameter).

Each drill pad will disturb an area of 40 x 40m. Within the disturbed area, the drill rig and drilling rods will be located. Four mud sumps will be used to circulate drilling fluid. Patented mud sumps will be used, which comprises compartmentalised tanks that will be placed on surface to contain the drilling mud. No sumps will therefore be dug. This arrangement is expected to reduce environmental impacts. Core trays and the accommodation of the drilling crew will also be placed inside the drill pad.

The project falls within the V31E, V31G and V60B quaternary catchments of the Thukela River water management area. The Kalbas River flows through the project area. The Ntshingwayo Dam (previously referred to as the Chelmsford Dam) is situated less than 500m northwest of the project area, as shown in Figure 1.


January 2016 1

Figure 1 Project location map


January 2016 1

2 LEGAL CONTEXT – GROUNDWATER

2.1 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002

All environmental requirements, including geohydrological impact assessments, previously regulated by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, now fall under the ambit of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 and subsequent regulations published in December 2014. The DMR, does however, remain the competent authority for all mining related applications in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998.

2.2 National Environmental Management Act, 2002

2.2.1 National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008

On 2 June 2014 the National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act came into force. Waste is accordingly no longer governed by the MPRDA, but is subject to all the provisions of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (NEM:WA).

Schedule 3: Defined Wastes have been broken down into two categories: Category A being hazardous wastes and category B being general wastes. Under Category A (hazardous wastes) the act makes allowance for “wastes resulting from exploration, mining, quarrying, and physical and chemical treatment of minerals”.

In order to attempt to understand the implications of this it is important to ensure that the definitions of all the relevant terminologies are defined:

Hazardous waste: means “ any waste that contains organic or inorganic elements or compounds that may, owning to the inherent physical, chemical or toxicological characteristic of that waste, have a detrimental impact on health and the environment and includes hazardous substances, materials or objects within business waste, residue deposits and residue stockpiles.”

Residue deposits: means “any residue stockpile remaining at the termination, cancellation or expiry of a prospecting right, mining right, mining permit, exploration right or production right.”

Residue stockpile: means “any debris, discard, tailings, slimes, screening, slurry, waste rock, foundry sand, mineral processing plant waste, ash or any other product derived from or incidental to a mining operation and which is stockpiled, stored or accumulated within the mining area for potential re-use, or which is disposed of, by the holder of a mining right, mining permit or, production right or an old order right, including historic mines and dumps created before the implementation of this Act.”

Various regulations have been drafted in support of the NEM:WA, as discussed below:

Proposed Regulations regarding the planning and management of waste from a prospecting, mining, exploration or production operations (2014)

o Chapter 2, Section 3 states the identification and assessment of any environmental impacts, including those on groundwater, arising from waste must be done as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No.107 of 1998) (hereafter referred to as the NEMA). The pollution control barrier system shall be defined by the (a) Waste Classification and Management Regulations (2013); (b) National Norms and Standards for the Assessment of Wastes for Landfill Disposal (2013); and (c) National Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill (2013).


January 2016 2

o Waste Characterisation must be done in terms of physical and chemical composition, as well as content. The classification must be done in terms of the health and safety classification and the environmental classification.

Proposed Regulations to exclude a waste stream or a portion of a waste stream from the definition of a waste (2014)

o This regulation will give the holder of the right the opportunity to exclude a waste stream, or a portion of a waste stream from the definition of a waste. Chapter 2, Section 4 of this Regulation, Sub-section (1) states that any portion of a waste generated from a source listed in Category A of Schedule 2 of the NEM:WA, may be excluded from being defined as hazardous on demonstration that such portion of waste in non-hazardous in accordance with the Waste Management and Classification Regulations of 2013.

o The application process will be in the form of a prescribed process and application must be made to the Minister.

o This Regulation is however not yet in force.

National Norms and Standards for the assessment of waste for landfill disposal (23 August 2013)

o These norms and standards prescribe the requirements for the assessment of waste prior to disposal to landfill.

o The aim of the waste classification tests is to characterise the material to be deposited or stored in terms of the above-mentioned waste classification guidelines set by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

o The outcomes of the tests provide the necessary information in terms of:

Identification of chemical substances present in the waste; and

Determination of the total concentrations (TC) and leachable concentrations (LC) of the elements and chemical substances that have been identified in the waste and that are specified in Section 6 of the above-mentioned Regulations. The obtained TC and LC values of the waste material will be compared to the threshold limits for total concentrations (TCT limits) and leachable concentrations (LCT limits) specified in Section 6 of the above-mentioned Regulations. Based on the TC and LC values of the elements and chemical substances in the waste exceeding the corresponding TCT and LCT limits respectively, the specific type of waste for disposal to landfill will be determined in terms of Section 7 of the above-mentioned Regulations.

As part of the tests:

The TC of all the elements and chemical substances specified in Section 6 of the above-mentioned Regulations that are known to occur, likely to occur, or can reasonably expected to occur in the waste will be determined;

The LC of elements and chemical substances will be determined using the Australian Standard Leaching Procedure (AS 4439.1, 34439.2 and 4439.3). The type of leaching fluid used in the leaching procedure will be selected based on:

Waste that will be disposed with, or contains, putrescible wastes;

Waste that will be disposed of other, non-putrescible, waste;

Non-putrescible waste that will be disposed of without any other wastes.

As mentioned above, the TC and LC values of the elements and chemical substances as obtained from the TC and LC tests will be compared to the TCT and LCT guidelines and the waste classified. These tests will define the


January 2016 3

type of waste one deals with, i.e. Type 0 – 4.

Waste Classification and Management Regulations (23 August 2013)

o Chapter 9 of the above-mentioned Regulations stipulates the requirements for a motivation for and consideration of listed Waste Management Activities that do not require a Waste Management License. The motivation must:

Demonstrate that the waste management activity can be implemented without unacceptable impacts on, or risk to, the environment or health;

Must provide a description of the waste;

Description of waste minimisation or waste management plans;

Description of potential impacts, etc.

o The transitional provisions under Chapter 6 of this regulations prescribes timeframes in which all wastes must be classified within 18 months from the date of commencement of these regulations (23 August 2013).

National Norms and Standards for disposal of waste to landfill (23 August 2013)

o Once the waste has been assessed and classification is done (waste type identified) the guidelines in Regulation 636 (above-mentioned regulations) can be used to determine the minimum requirements for the landfill and containment barrier design. This will distinguish between Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D landfills and the associated requirements.

2.3 National Water Act, 1998

The NWA gives effect to the rights enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa with regards to water resource management. The purpose of the Act is to provide for the protection, usage, development, conservation, management and control of the country’s water resources in an integrated manner.

The Act provides the legal basis upon which to develop tools and means to affect the said activities. One of these tools is the authorisation of the water uses as defined in Chapter 4 of the NWA. Section 21 of the Act lists the following 11 water uses which can only be legitimately undertaken through a water use authorisation (water use license) issued by the DWA:

a. taking water from a water resource;

b. storing water;

c. impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse;

d. engaging in a stream flow reduction activity contemplated in section 36;

e. engaging in a controlled activity identified as such in section 37(1) or declared under

section 38(1);

f. discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal,

sewer, sea outfall or other conduits;

g. disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource;

h. disposing in any manner of water which contains waste from, or which has been heated

in, any industrial or power generation process;

i. altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse;

j. removing, discharging or disposing of water found underground if it is necessary for the

efficient continuation of an activity or for the safety of people; and

k. Using water for recreational purposes.


January 2016 4

As part of the NWA, and with specific reference the GN704 of 1999 has been published. These regulations impose specific restrictions on activities in terms of its locality. One of these restrictions are in terms of Regulation 4(c) saying that no person in control of a mine or activity may place or dispose of any residue or substance which causes or is likely to cause pollution of water resources, prospecting diggings, pit or any other excavation. If the waste classification results reflect pollution potential, an applicant will therefore have to apply for exemption from GN704 in order to undertaken concurrent rehabilitation. If no pollution potential is revealed by the classification results, no exemption is required. GN704 also prescribes the design and construction of pollution control dams.

3 BASELINE GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTION

3.1 Geology

The regional hard rock geology comprises sandstones, shales, mudstones and coal seams of the Permian Ecca Group, Karoo Supergroup, as indicated in Figure 2. The rugged pre-Karoo topography is formed by tillites and diamictites of the Dwyka Group and defines the base of the basin.

The Ecca Group comprises 16 formations, which includes the Volksrust and Vryheid Formations, which is present within the project area. The different lithofacies of the Vryheid Formation are mainly arranged in upward-coarsening cycles, which are deltaic in origin (Johnson et al, 2006). The Vryheid Formation can be subdivided into a lower fluvial-dominated deltaic interval, a middle fluvial interval and an upper fluvial-dominated deltaic interval. These subdivisions correspond approximately to the “lower sandstones”, the “coal zone” and the “upper sandstones”. The sediments comprise coarse-grained to pebbly sandstones that transition into fine-grained sediments and coal seams. The coal seams originated as peat swamps developed on broad abandoned alluvial plains.

The Volksrust Formation is predominantly argillaceous and interfingers with the overlying Beaufort Group and the underlying Vryheid Formation sediments (Johnson et al, 2006). The formation consists of grey to black silty shale with thin siltstone or sandstone lenses. Thin phosphate and carbonate beds and concretions are fairly common. The substantial thickness, fine-grained lithology and great lateral extent of the Volksrust Formation suggests that it represents a transgressive open shelf sequence consisting largely of mud deposited from suspension.

Jurassic age dolerite sills have extensively intruded the project area. The intrusive dolerite suite represents the shallow feeder system to flood basalt eruptions. The sills are horizontal to sub-horizontal intrusions along the bedding planes of the sedimentary rocks of the Ecca Group.

Quaternary unconsolidated alluvial deposits are present along the flood plains of the main rivers and streams. These alluvial deposits are typically not thick, but do play a role in the base flow to the rivers and streams.

Hydrocarbons (oil, gas and oil shales) are associated with the upper shales of the Vryheid Formation. Widespread intrusion by dolerites probably led to large-scale conversion of oil into gas and some escape along fractures (Johnson et al, 2006). Four of the five proposed exploration wells are located within the Vryheid Formation, as shown in Figure 2. The remaining well, BH2, is situated within the alluvial deposits of the Kalbas River.


January 2016 5

The project falls within the Klip River Coal Field of the Karoo Supergroup. The coal seams (Top and Bottom Seams) lie at a depth of 170 – 270m below surface. The overlying strata consist of alternating sandstone and shale into which dolerite sills have intruded, as discussed above. The main sill in the area, the Ingogo sill, has a thickness of 80m and is located approximately 94m above the coal seams (www.thevirtualminemuseum.org.za).

Durnacol Colliery is located within the project area. Coal mining has taken place since the turn of the 20th century, focussing on the production of coking coal for the shipping industry and later for iron smelting (Zhao et al, 2009). The mine ceased production in 2000 and the mining area is currently in a rehabilitation phase.

Information for Durnacol Colliery obtained from www.thevirtualminemuseum.org.za was used to construct a typical geological cross section. This is presented in Table 1. It is shown that the Top and Bottom coal seams are on average 1m thick and occur at an average depth of approximately 220m. The Ingogo dolerite sill is more than 80m thick and extends to a depth of 128m. It is assumed that the hydrocarbon target zone is associated with the sandstone and shales found at depths of between 128 and 220m.

Table 1 Typical geological cross section Depth from (m) Depth to (m) Target zone

0 3 Overburden

3 25 Shale

25 46 Sandstone

46 128 Ingogo dolerite sill

128 220 Sandstone intercalated with shale

220 221 Top Coal Seam

221 223 Sandstone and shale parting

223 224 Bottom Coal Seam

224 Not determined Sandstone intercalated with shale


January 2016 6

Figure 2 Geological setting


January 2016 7

Table 2 Hydrocensus borehole information

BH ID Farm name

Latitude Longitude Elevation (mamsl)

BH Depth

(m)

SWL (m)

Yield (l/hr)

Use Sample taken

Owner Contact number

Comments

SS1 Brompton -28.09876 29.966622 1314 250 100+ Unknown Monitoring No Durnacol Exxaro

0827940556 BH historical used at Durnacol Colliery for monitoring (BH ID = RB2)

SS2 Sewango -28.05150 29.977664 1312 250 NA Unknown Monitoring No Durnacol Exxaro


SS3 Sewango -28.03895 29.979095 1313 250 100+ Unknown Monitoring No Durnacol Exxaro


SS4 Lilydale -28.05219 29.957055 1273 40 NA Unknown Domestic Yes Mr Henk

Zaal 0346212004

Borehole used by farm workers and is fitted with a hand pump

SS5 Kalbas Vlakte

-28.03019 29.964633 1273 NA NA Unknown Not in use No Mr Henk

Zaal 0346212004 Borehole collapsed to 5m

SS6 Ruston -28.08325 29.94397 1301 40 10.43 Unknown Stock

watering Yes

Mr Henk Zaal

0346212004 Wind pump supplies dam for stock watering. BH pumping at time of measurement.

SS7 Lilydale -28.06946 29.95195 1287 40 8.27 Unknown Domestic Yes Mr Henk

Zaal 0346212004 Borehole is main supply of water to farm house

SS8 Kalbas Vlakte

-28.02899 29.969191 1288 NA 9.74 Unknown Not in use No Mr Henk

Zaal 0346212004 Wiind pump equipment was stolen

Table 3 NGDB boreholes present in the vicinity of the project

BH ID Latitude Longitude Date drilled SWL (m) Discharge rate (l/s) Lithology intersected

2829BB00013 -28.14517 29.90024 1983/12/02 40 0.27 Dolerite

2829BB00013 -28.14517 29.90024 1983/12/02 40 0.27 Sandstone

2829BB00013 -28.14517 29.90024 1983/12/02 40 0.27 Shale

2829BB00014 -28.14516 29.90023

Dolerite

2829BB00014 -28.14516 29.90023

Sandstone

2829BB00014 -28.14516 29.90023

Shale

2829BB00015 -28.13933 29.9111 1983/11/16 20 1 Dolerite

2829BB00037 -28.13344 29.99573

2829BB00019 -28.12906 29.88861

Dolerite

2829BB00019 -28.12906 29.88861

Shale

2829BB00019 -28.12906 29.88861

Soil

2829BB00018 -28.12905 29.8886

Dolerite


January 2016 8

BH ID Latitude Longitude Date drilled SWL (m) Discharge rate (l/s) Lithology intersected

2829BB00018 -28.12905 29.8886

Sandstone

2829BB00018 -28.12905 29.8886

Shale

2829BB00033 -28.12041 29.98122 1995/01/19 8:00 10

2829BB00035 -28.11936 29.98558

2829BB00036 -28.11844 29.99322

2829BB00034 -28.11485 29.98305

2829BB00038 -28.11394 29.98305

2829BB00039 -28.11394 29.98306

2829BB00040 -28.11394 29.98307

2829BB00023 -28.10686 29.90696

Sandstone

2829BB00023 -28.10686 29.90696

Shale

2829BB00021 -28.10685 29.90695

Dolerite

2829BB00021 -28.10685 29.90695

Sandstone

2829BB00021 -28.10685 29.90695

Shale

2829BB00022 -28.10684 29.90694

Dolerite

2829BB00022 -28.10684 29.90694

Sandstone

2829BB00022 -28.10684 29.90694

Shale

2829BB00020 -28.10683 29.90693

Dolerite

2829BB00020 -28.10683 29.90693

Sandstone

2829BB00020 -28.10683 29.90693

Shale

2829BB00005 -28.01655 29.9786

Clay

2829BB00005 -28.01655 29.9786

Shale


January 2016 9

3.2 Occurrence of boreholes and springs

3.2.1 Hydrocensus

A hydrocensus was undertaken to identify private groundwater use within the project area as part of the scoping phase of the project. The hydrocensus focussed only on the farms on which exploration boreholes may be drilled as part of the proposed exploration project. These include:

One Tree Hill 3301 (RE) owned by Mr S Meintjes. Proposed exploration well BH1 is situated on this property;

Kalebas Vlakte 3749, Lily Dale 8528 and Ruston 9012 (Ptn 2) owned by Mr Henk Zaal. Proposed exploration wells BH2, 3 and 4 are situated on these properties; and

Sewango 8408 (RE) owned by Coastal Coal Pty Ltd. The Durnacol Colliery is situated on this farm, which is currently being rehabilitated by Exxaro. Proposed exploration well BH5 is situated on this property.

In preparation for the hydrocensus, all landowners were contacted prior to the commencement of the hydrocensus in order to ensure that all boreholes are identified and visited as part of the study. Access permission was obtained from Mr Zaal and Exxaro. Unfortunately Mr Meintjes refused access and no work could be undertaken on the farm One Tree Hill. The information gathered during the hydrocensus plays an important role in understanding the importance of groundwater in the region and also assists to prepare for the specialist geohydrological study to be undertaken during the EIA phase of the project.

The general conditions around proposed exploration wells BH2 – 5 are indicated in the photos in Figure 3. It is shown that all areas comprise agricultural/cultivated or mining land.

Discussions held with Mr Henk Zaal during the hydrocensus indicate that water is mainly abstracted from perennial rivers and streams, including the Kalbas River. During the site visit, various small natural and constructed dams were noted. These are used by farmers to collect and store surface water. Canals are also dug to source water from rivers and streams. It appears that groundwater is not the main source of water supply to the landowners visited.

A total of eight private boreholes were identified as part of the hydrocensus. Details regarding these boreholes are presented in Table 2 and the locations of these boreholes are shown on Figure 4. More details regarding the hydrocensus are presented in Appendix 1.

Three of the boreholes visited during the hydrocensus belong to Exxaro and formed part of the Durnacol Colliery monitoring programme. These boreholes were drilled to a depth of 250m. The depth to groundwater in two of these boreholes is greater than 100m, possibly suggesting the impact of historical mining activities on groundwater levels.

Five boreholes were identified on Mr Zaal’s properties, the farms Lily Dale, Kalbas Vlakte and Ruston. These boreholes are shallower than the mine monitoring boreholes and were drilled to a depth of 40m. The depth to the groundwater level varies between 8.3 and 10.4m below surface. Two of the boreholes, SS5 and SS7, are used for domestic water supply. The yields of these boreholes are unfortunately not known at present. The boreholes are fitted with a hand pump and wind pumps, suggesting that their yields are low, most probably below 1 l/s. Borehole SS6 is used for stock watering.

Three of the boreholes, SS4, SS6 and SS7, were sampled. The results of the groundwater analyses are discussed later in this report.


January 2016 10

General area of proposed exploration BH2 on the farm Kalebas Vlakte

General area of proposed exploration BH3 on the farm Lily Dale

General area of proposed exploration BH4 on the farm Ruston

General area of proposed exploration BH5 on the farm Sevango

Figure 3 Photos indicating the conditions around exploration wells


January 2016 11

Figure 4 Hydrocensus borehole location map


January 2016 12

3.2.2 National Groundwater Database Boreholes

In addition to the hydrocensus, the National Groundwater Database (NGDB) was consulted to identify boreholes recorded by the Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation (DWS) in the region. A total of 18 boreholes were identified within or in the vicinity of the application area, as shown in Figure 2 and Table 3.

Very little information is indicated for the boreholes in the database, as shown in Table 3. The depth to groundwater in three of the boreholes varies between 10 and 40m below surface. The discharge (or pumping) rates for two of the boreholes are 0.3 and 1 l/s respectively. These low yields are typical of Karoo-type aquifers.

The lithology intersected suggest that groundwater in eight out of the 18 boreholes listed is associated with the dolerite sills present in the area.

3.3 Aquifers present

Three aquifers were identified from the available information. These include:

A shallow weathered aquifer that it typically formed in the upper 10 – 15m of the geological succession. This aquifer may not be laterally extensive and is associated with the depth of weathering of the sandstones and shales. The aquifer plays an important role in the recharge of rainwater to the underlying aquifer(s) as well as in the groundwater contribution to the base flow of rivers and streams. The aquifer is not regionally used for groundwater abstraction, but can be vulnerable to potential contamination associated with spills within the exploration drill pads.

A deeper fractured rock aquifer, which is formed by faults, fractures and bedding planes associated with the sandstones, shales and coal seams of the Vryheid and Volksrust Formations. The aquifer may be enhanced in the contact zones with dolerite intrusions where the permeability of the host rocks are increased due to fracturing and faulting associated with the intrusion. The fractured rock aquifer is regionally used for groundwater abstraction by farmers. The yield of this aquifer is typically low, most probably lower than 1 l/s.

The alluvium deposited in the floodplains of the rivers and streams will also form an unconsolidated unconfined aquifer. This aquifer is not laterally extensive, but is expected to play an important role in the interaction between groundwater and surface water. Due to the fact that the alluvium typically comprises coarser sediments, it is expected to act as a preferential flow path to groundwater. As such it will be more vulnerable to potential contamination associated with spills within the drill pad compared to the weathered aquifer.

The presence and extent of aquifers within the project area must be confirmed as part of the EIA phase of the project.

3.4 Ambient groundwater quality

Three groundwater samples were taken during the hydrocensus for chemical analysis. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 4 and in Figures 5 and 6. The certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix 2.

The groundwater analyses presented in Table 4 are compared to the SANS 241:2011 Drinking Water Quality and DWAF (1996) Livestock Watering Quality Standards. Results indicated that the water quality is generally fit for domestic use. The exceptions are manganese in SS4 and molybdenum in SS4 and SS6.

Elevated manganese concentrations could indicate anaerobic conditions where soluble manganese has been mobilised in borehole SS4. The concentrations recorded in SS4 falls


January 2016 13

within a tolerable range, although staining may occur. No health effects are expected at the concentration of 0.1 mg/l. This water can be treated with an oxidising process, like the addition of chlorine, to convert soluble manganese to an insoluble oxide, which can be filtered from the water.

The presence of elevated molybdenum could be attributed to the geology, as it is unlikely to have originated from anthropogenic processes in this area. Molybdenum can enhance microbial activity in rumen and impacts on metabolic processes in cattle. Symptoms of the impact of molybdenum include diarrhoea, loss of appetite and weight loss. Molybdenum can be removed by raising the pH of the water through lime addition and the precipitating of the insoluble salts (DWAF, 1996).

The groundwater sampled has a neutral to slightly alkaline pH. The total dissolved salts, indicated by the electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solid (TDS) concentrations, are low and comply with drinking water standards. The groundwater sampled from SS4 is moderately soft, while the groundwater from SS6 is slightly hard. Borehole SS7 has very hard water. Hardness is determined by the calcium and magnesium concentrations in the water. Excessive hardness can give rise to scaling and results in an increase in soap required to produce lather when bathing and in household cleaning. The natural hardness of groundwater is influenced by the geology and the presence of soluble calcium and magnesium minerals. The water can be softened by the addition of lime.

Table 4 Ambient groundwater quality

Element Units

SANS241:2011 DWAF 1996

SS4 SS6 SS7 Drinking

Water Quality Standard

Agricultural use: Livestock

watering

pH pH units 5 - 9.7 NS 7.64 8.49 7.44

EC mS/m 170 NS 56.1 23.2 56.1

TDS mg/L 1200 2000 342 152 390

Calcium (Ca) mg/L NS 1000 26.34 24.27 75.26

Potassium (K) mg/L NS NS 1.402 2.447 0.9453

Magnesium (Mg) mg/L NS 500 5.831 11.78 36.96

Sodium (Na) mg/L 200 2000 113.3 14.09 26.54

Chloride (Cl) mg/L 300 1500 15.8 9.59 43.6

Fluoride (F) mg/L 1.5 2 0.234 0.194 0.272

Nitrate (NO3) mg/L 11 100 0.129 0.215 2.56

Nitrite (NO2) mg/L 0.9 100 0.085 0.192 0.2

Phosphate (P) mg/L NS NS 0.029 0.037 0.03

Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 250 1000 23.4 0.3 75.1

Ammonium (NH4) mg/L NS NS 0.043 0.11 0.029

Total nitrogen mg/L 11 NS 3.26 4.12 6.59

Silver (Ag) mg/L NS NS <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Aluminium (Al) mg/L 0.3 5 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06

Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.01 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Boron (B) mg/L NS 5 0.124 0.014 0.016

Barium (Ba) mg/L NS NS 0.216 0.034 0.007

Beryllium (Be) mg/L NS NS <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.002 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.5 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Chromium (Cr) mg/L 0.05 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Copper (Cu) mg/L 2 0.5 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.03 10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Gallium (Ga) mg/L NS NS 0.005 0.003 0.009

Manganese (Mn) mg/L 0.01 10 0.0976 0.002 0.002

Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.07 1 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.01 0.1 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L NS 0.01 0.011 0.011 0.009

Rubidium (Rb) mg/L NS NS 0.013 0.063 0.082

Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01


January 2016 14

Element Units

SANS241:2011 DWAF 1996

SS4 SS6 SS7 Drinking

Water Quality Standard

Agricultural use: Livestock

watering

Strontium (Sr) mg/L NS NS 0.847 0.085 0.209

Tellurium (Te) mg/L NS NS <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Thallium (Tl) mg/L NS NS <0.037 <0.037 <0.037

Vanadium (V) mg/L 0.2 1 <0.01 0.0137 <0.01

Zinc (Zn) mg/L NS 20 0.2767 <0.001 0.0033

Calcium Hardness mg/L CaCO3 NS NS 65.77 60.60 187.92

Magnesium Hardness mg/L CaCO3 NS NS 24.01 48.51 152.20

Total Hardness mg/L CaCO3 NS NS 89.78 109.11 340.13

Total Alkalinity mg/L CaCO3 NS NS 262.00 111.00 197.00

Figure 5 Major cation and anion concentrations in groundwater

The comparison between major cations and anions for the three boreholes in Figure 5 suggests that the groundwater from SS4 is sodium-sulphate dominant; the groundwater from SS6 is calcium-chloride dominant; and the groundwater from SS7 is calcium-sulphate dominant.

The dominant metals in groundwater from SS4 are strontium and zinc. In SS6 and SS7, the dominant metals are strontium, rubidium and aluminium. The metal concentrations are indicated graphically in Figure 6.


January 2016 15

Figure 6 Proportional metal concentrations in groundwater


January 2016 16

4 ISSUES RELATING TO GEOHYDROLOGY

4.1 Activities that may impact on groundwater

4.1.1 Using groundwater as water supply to the project

If water for the exploration project is to be sourced from boreholes, private groundwater use may be negatively affected. The abstraction of groundwater by Sungu Sungu will be in direct competition with existing groundwater users in the area. The applicant has indicated that approximately 3000l of water will be utilised by the project per day. The impact of this abstraction on regional groundwater users must however be quantified as part of the EIA Phase of this project, if this is considered as an option to Sungu Sungu. An approximation of the zone of impact resulting from groundwater abstraction from a new borehole at the site can be made Sichardt’s equation:

𝑅𝑖 = 3000𝐷0√𝑘

Where Ri = radius of the zone of influence; D0 = maximum drawdown in groundwater level (assumed to be 70m); and k = aquifer hydraulic conductivity (assumed to be 1E-4 m/d, which it typical for the area).

Under these assumptions, the cone of depression as a result of groundwater abstraction could extend some 2km from the site. Based on this first approximation, a 2km radius around the proposed exploration wells are flagged as a low sensitivity area for the purpose of scoping of the geohydrological specialist study. This assumption must be confirmed during the EIA phase of the project.

Furthermore, a zone of 1km around each private borehole identified during the hydrocensus is delineated as the capture zone for the borehole. This means that the groundwater currently abstracted from private boreholes is attracted from the aquifer(s) within 1km around each borehole. This is an assumption based on the author’s experience in similar environments, but must be confirmed during the EIA phase of the project. This zone is therefore delineated as a high sensitivity area from a groundwater perspective.

4.1.2 Surface sources to groundwater contamination

Groundwater contamination as a result of spills within the drill pad was identified as a second risk. Sungu Sungu has indicated that a patented drilling sump will be used to contain drilling mud. This will reduce the risk of soil and groundwater contamination from the drilling mud. Other spills that may occur include diesel and oil spills associated with the equipment on site.

In most instances, the geohydrological impacts listed above are associated with spills and leaks, which can be managed through the implementation of good housekeeping as well as sound environmental practices and training. The regional extent of these impacts is not expected to be significant, but would rather be restricted to the site.

4.1.3 Waste streams

In addition to the waste streams discussed above, the following may impact on aquifers in the vicinity of the project:

Sewage effluent will be generated on site.

Dirty storm water will be generated within the drill pad.


January 2016 17

Other waste that may be generated on site may include packaging waste, waste oils, oil contaminated rags, hydraulic fluids and scrap metals.

4.2 Residual impacts

In order to ensure that the long-term residual impacts on groundwater levels and quality is minimised, it is important that the drill pads are rehabilitated in an efficient manner upon decommissioning and closure of the exploration well.

4.3 Potential cumulative impacts

The most significant cumulative impact identified at present involves that of additional groundwater abstraction for the project. As discussed above, this additional groundwater abstraction will be in direct competition with the existing groundwater users. The cumulative impact of groundwater abstraction must be evaluated during the EIA Phase of the project, if applicable.

4.4 Sensitivity map – Geohydrology

Based on the findings of the scoping study discussed here, a sensitivity map was generated for the geohydrology to be affected by the project according to EIMS requirements. The map is presented in Figure 7 and the components thereof are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5 Sensitivity rating: Geohydrology (EIMS methodology) Sensitivity

Rating Description

Geohydrological component identified

Motivation Weighting

Least Concern

The inherent feature status and sensitivity is already degraded. The proposed development will not affect the current status and/or may result in a positive impact. These features would be the preferred alternative for mining or infrastructure placement.

Remainder of greater project area not affected by the ratings below.

This area excludes groundwater receptors or sensitive areas identified during scoping.

-1

Low

The proposed development will have not have a significant effect on the inherent feature status and sensitivity.

A zone of 2km around the proposed exploration wells.


0

Low

The proposed development will have not have a significant effect on the inherent feature status and sensitivity.

The contact zone between the dolerite intrusions and the host rocks.


0

High The proposed development will negatively influence the current status of the feature.

A zone of 1km around private boreholes identified during the hydrocensus.

The groundwater capture zone for the private boreholes identified during scoping is assumed to be 1km around each borehole. Any activity within this zone may result in a deterioration in private borehole performance. This assumption is considered a worst case scenario, based on the author’s

+1


January 2016 18

Sensitivity Rating

Description Geohydrological component

identified Motivation Weighting

experience in similar conditions and will be confirmed during the EIA phase of the project.

High The proposed development will negatively influence the current status of the feature.

The alluvial aquifer associated with the floodplains of rivers and streams.

Although this aquifer is not laterally extensive, it is expected to have a higher permeability compared to the underlying hard rock aquifers. This aquifer is also expected to play a more significant role in the interaction between groundwater and surface water. For this reason, it could act as preferential groundwater flow paths and is especially susceptible to groundwater contamination associated with spills within the drill pads.

+1

Very High

The proposed development will negatively significantly influence the current status of the feature.

All private boreholes identified during the hydrocensus


+2

Based on the groundwater assessment discussed above, it is shown that the proposed exploration wells BH4 and BH2 fall within high sensitivity areas.

BH2 falls within the 1km radius around hydrocensus boreholes SS4, which is used for domestic use. This borehole also falls within the alluvial aquifer, which is thought to be more susceptible to possible groundwater contamination from spills within the drill pad.

BH4 falls within the 1km radius around hydrocensus borehole SS6, which is used for stock watering.

BH1, 3 and 5 fall in a low sensitivity area from a groundwater perspective.

The impact of the proposed exploration programme associated with these two boreholes must be confirmed through a more detailed assessment as part of the EIA phase of the project. Specific groundwater management measures will be developed for these wells to ensure that the impact on groundwater and private groundwater use is minimised.


January 2016 19

Figure 7 Groundwater sensitivity map


January 2016 20

5 PROVISIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

A provisional Environmental Impact Assessment was undertaken according to EIMS methodology. The assessment is based on the limited information currently available regarding the project as well as the hydrogeology for the project area. Two aspects were assessed, namely the reduction in groundwater availability to private groundwater users if groundwater is abstracted for use during the proposed exploration programme; and the impact of spills within the drill pads on groundwater quality. The results are presented in Table 6. This assessment must be re-evaluated once more detailed hydrogeological and exploration project information is available for the project area.

Table 6 Provisional groundwater impact assessment

Impact Name

Alternative

Phase

Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation

Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 3 2

Extent of Impact 3 3 Reversibility of Impact 2 2

Duration of Impact 2 2 Probability 2 2

-5.00

-4.50Low

1

2

2

1.33

-6.00Final Significance

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

Cumulative Impacts

Edit this once pasted into the report

Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation)

Degree of confidence in impact prediction:

Impact Prioritisation

Public Response

Reduction in groundwater availability

Alternative 1

Environmental Risk

Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation)

Mitigation Measures

Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is probable that the impact

will result in spatial and temporal cummulative change.

Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources

The impact may result in the irreplaceable loss (cannot be replaced or subsitituted) of resources but the value (services and/or

functions) of these resources is limited.

Prioritisation Factor

Operation

Impact Name

Alternative

Phase

Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation

Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 3 2

Extent of Impact 3 2 Reversibility of Impact 3 2

Duration of Impact 3 2 Probability 3 3

-9.00

-6.00Low

1

2

2

1.33

-8.00Final Significance

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

Cumulative Impacts

Edit this once pasted into the report

Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation)

Degree of confidence in impact prediction:

Impact Prioritisation

Public Response

Contamination of groundwater

Alternative 1

Environmental Risk

Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation)

Mitigation Measures

Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is probable that the impact

will result in spatial and temporal cummulative change.

Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources

The impact may result in the irreplaceable loss (cannot be replaced or subsitituted) of resources but the value (services and/or

functions) of these resources is limited.

Prioritisation Factor

Operation


January 2016 21

6 PLAN OF STUDY FOR EIA

A geohydrological specialist study will be undertaken as part of the Impact Assessment phase to investigate the key potential issues identified during scoping. These key issues have been identified based on:

The legal requirements;

The nature of the receiving environment and the proposed activities discussed above;

· Professional experience of the geohydrologist.

The assessment of impacts will be based on the professional judgement of the geohydrologist, site assessments, fieldwork, conceptualisation and numerical groundwater flow and contaminant transport modelling, as applicable. Assumptions, limitations and sources of information will be clearly identified. The knowledge of local people will, where possible, be incorporated into the study, especially in terms of private groundwater use and the drilling of boreholes. The description of the approach will include a short discussion of the appropriateness of the methods used in the geohydrological study. The assessment of the data shall will be based on accepted scientific techniques as well as professional expertise and experience.

6.1 Description of the Affected Environment or Baseline

A description of the affected geohydrological environment will be provided, both at a site-specific level and for the wider region. The latter will provide an appropriate context, especially in terms of regional groundwater use. It is essential that the uniqueness or irreplaceability of the groundwater resources is understood in the context of the surrounding region at a local, regional scale. This will largely be based on the results of numerical modelling.

The study will provide a sufficiently comprehensive description of the existing geohydrological setting to ensure that a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development can be made. The baseline will include data collected during field surveys as well as desktop studies.

6.2 Impact Identification and Assessment

Clear statements identifying the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project will be presented. This includes potential impacts of the construction, operational, decommissioning and closure phases of the project. The study will clearly identify the potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the geohydrology. The assessment of these impacts will specifically take into account any private groundwater use in the surrounding area.

Direct impacts that require a quantitative assessment, will be assessed following the impact assessment methodology laid out by EIMS. The significance of impacts will be assessed both without and with assumed effective mitigation and/or rehabilitation. Indirect and cumulative impacts will be described qualitatively. The study will comparatively assess environmental impacts of the proposed production well (and each alternative if applicable), and will indicate any fatal flaws, i.e. very significant adverse geohydrological impacts, which cannot be mitigated and which will jeopardise the project and/or groundwater use in a particular area. All conclusions will be thoroughly backed up by scientific evidence.


January 2016 22

6.3 Mitigation Measures

The study will recommend practicable mitigation measures or management actions that effectively minimise or eliminate negative impacts, enhance beneficial impacts, and assist project design. If appropriate, the study will differentiate between essential mitigation measures, which must be implemented and optional mitigation measures, which are recommended (“nice-to-haves”). Unsubstantiated recommendations for further studies will be avoided.

The study will recommend appropriate monitoring and review programmes to track the efficacy of mitigation measures.

The study will indicate the environmental acceptability of the proposed project (and alternatives if applicable), i.e. whether the impacts are acceptable or not. A comparison between the “no-project” alternative and the proposed development alternative(s) will also be included.

6.4 Terms of Reference for the Geohydrological Specialist Study

This study will address aspects associated with groundwater identified in the scoping phase. The following is proposed:

Identify, describe and map groundwater resources (aquifers) in the area that may be affected by the proposed project and obtain a holistic understanding of the interactions between surface water and wetland resources and the aquifer(s) in the area. This information will be presented as the geohydrological baseline assessment.

Undertake surface geophysical surveys to identify and delineate potential water-bearing fractures or faults within the target areas;

Take groundwater samples from monitoring boreholes for chemical analysis at an accredited laboratory in order to establish the baseline groundwater quality for the project site;

Construct a conceptual model for the sub-catchment in which the target area falls, which demonstrates the interaction between the proposed oil production well and associated activates and the aquifer(s) present.

Construct and calibrate a groundwater flow and contaminant transport model for the sub-catchment in which the project is situated. The model will be used as a groundwater impact assessment and prediction tool.

Identify and assess potential impacts on groundwater resources, including impacts associated with the construction, operation, decommissioning and post closure phases of the proposed project;

Propose practical measures to mitigate/rehabilitate potentially negative impacts and enhance positive impacts of the project;

·Recommend monitoring measures to ensure the correct implementation and adequacy of recommenced mitigation measures;

·Make recommendations for closure planning.


January 2016 23

7 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The findings of the geohydrological scoping study are based on the information presented in this report. The report is therefore based on the following assumptions and limitations:

The discussions presented in this report are based on a desktop study undertaken on publically accessible information for the area as well as a hydrocensus completed within the application area. The information used is discussed in Section 2 with additional information presented in the Appendices.

No site-specific aquifer characteristics are currently available. Where the zone of influence is estimated in Section 3.1, assumed aquifer parameters were used.

In the absence of detailed information, it was assumed that groundwater will be abstracted for water supply to the exploration programme. This will impact on groundwater available for private use within the project area. If water will be sourced from other resources, this impact will not be considered as part of the impact assessment phase of the project.

8 CONCLUSIONS

The following can be concluded from the groundwater scoping assessment:

A hydrocensus undertaken during the scoping phase of the geohydrological study indicates that 8 private boreholes are present on the farms on which exploration wells may be drilled. Three of these boreholes are currently used for groundwater abstraction.

Groundwater is used for domestic and livestock watering purposes. One of the landowners indicated that groundwater is not used extensively on a regional scale. Water is sourced mainly from perennial rivers and streams as well as from dams.

The depth to groundwater strikes in available borehole information varies between 8.5 and 10.4m below surface.

The yields of the private boreholes identified during the hydrocensus are not known. Based on the fact that the boreholes are fitted with a hand pump and wind pumps, it is assumed that groundwater is abstracted at rates below 1 l/s.

Based on available information, it is thought that three aquifers are present, namely a shallow weathered, a deeper fractured rock and an alluvial aquifer.

The potential activities associated with the project that may impact on groundwater, include the following:

o Using groundwater a s water supply to the project.

o The impact of spills within the drill pads on groundwater quality.

Based on the results of the scoping study, the following geohydrological sensitivity ratings area assigned:


Low


Low


High

The groundwater capture zone for the private boreholes identified during scoping is assumed to be 1km around each borehole. Any activity within this zone may result in a deterioration in private borehole performance. This assumption is considered a worst case scenario, based on the author’s experience in similar conditions and will be confirmed during the EIA phase of the project.


January 2016 24


High

Although the alluvial aquifer is not laterally extensive, it is expected to have a higher permeability compared to the underlying hard rock aquifers. This aquifer is also expected to play a more significant role in the interaction between groundwater and surface water. For this reason, it could act as preferential groundwater flow paths and is especially susceptible to groundwater contamination associated with spills within the drill pads.

Very High


9 REFERENCES

DWAF, 1996. South African Water Quality Guidelines – Volume 5 – Agricultural use: Livestock watering, Second edition.

Johnson, M.R., Annhaeusser, C.R. and Thomas, R.J. (Eds), 2006. The Geology of South Africa. Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg / Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, 691 pp.

SANS241:2011. South African National Standard – Drinking Water, dated June 2011.

Zhao, B. Jacobs, P. and Schwegler, F. 2009. Geochemical assessment of the potential impact of Durban Navigation Colliery dumps on the environment, South Africa, Proceedings of the International Mine Water Conference, 19 – 23 October 2009, Pretoria.


January 2016

APPENDIX 1

HYDROCENSUS INFORMATION


January 2016

ID Farmname X Y Z Depth Swl Yield Use Sample Owner Contactnumber Photo

SS1 Brompton -28.098756 29.966622 1314 250m 100+ Unknown Monitoring No DurnacolExarro 0827940556' Yes

(RB2)* MariettedeLange

Comments:

ThisholewasusedasaMonitoringpointwhentheminewasstillinoperation,thereisnoproductiononthemineanditiscurrentlybusywithrehabilitation.

*NameofDurnacolmine.


SS2 Sewanaga -28.051502 29.977664 1312 250m N/A Unknown Monitoring No DurnacolExarro 0827940556' Yes


Comments:

ThisholewasusedasaMonitoringpointwhentheminewasstillinoperation,thereisnoproductiononthemineanditiscurrentlybusywithrehabilitation.Thisholehascollapsedat40m.



SS2 -28.038951 29.979095 1313 250m 100+ Unknown Monitoring No DurnacolExarro 0827940556' Yes


Comments:

ThisholewasusedasaMonitoringpointwhentheminewasstillinoperation,thereisnoproductiononthemineanditiscurrentlybusywithrehabilitation.



SS4 Lilydale -28.052187 29.957055 1273 40m N/A Unknown Domestic Yes HenkZaan 0346212004' Yes

Comments:

Thisholeisusedbythefarmworkersandisequipedwithahandpump.


SS5 Kalbas -28.030193 29.964633 1273 N/A N/A Unknown Notinuse No HenkZaan 0346212004' Yes

Comments:

Theholehascollapsedat.5mandwasdrilledbyanunknownpreviousowner.


January 2016


SS8 Kalbas -28.028997 29.969191 1288 N/A 9.74 Unknown Notinuse No HenkZaan 0346212004' Yes

Comments:

Windpumpwasstolenandithasnotbeenreplaced.


SS6 Ruston -28.083248 29.94397 1301 40m 10.43 Unknown Agricultural Yes HenkZaan 0346212004' Yes

Comments:

Windpumpsuppliesadamthatprovideswaterforfarmanimals,waterlevelwasnotstaticattimeofmeasurement.


SS7 Lilydale -28.069464 29.95195 1287 40m 8.27 Unknown Domestic Yes HenkZaan 0346212004' Yes

Comments:

Thisholeisthemainwatersupplytothefarmhouse.


January 2016

APPENDIX 2

GROUNDATER QUALITY

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS


January 2016

groundwater scoping report

Documents