While Jagersfontein Developments, the company that owns the tailings dam that collapsed in Jagersfontein, hasn't said anything, it does appear as if this is the end of its operations, according to Richard Spoor, a public service lawyer.
This follows the collapse of the tailings dam last week, leading to the death of one person and the displacement of many others.
The cause of the collapse has yet to be determined.
According to Spoor, Jagersfontein Developments produces vast quantities of tailings and needed a dam to dump them. Without the tailings dam, they won’t have anywhere to dump them.
“I think they generate about 300 tons per hour of tailings, and you need a place to dump that. And they have stated previously that it is too expensive. It’s not economically viable to build a new dump.
“So that probably means that this mine will shut. It’s not going to continue,” he said.
He said the design of that dam was to accept 770 000 cubic metres of waste per annum, while Jagersfontein Developments was dumping over 2 million.
“Jagersfontein was dumping a lot more water onto the dam. If you dump too much water on the dam, you destabilise it. If it has too much water, it becomes too wet. The risk of failure is considerably higher.
“A tailings dam is designed to deal with a certain amount of water. There must be functioning de-watering systems in place. It cannot get too wet, but we know that they were dumping huge quantities above the licence conditions on that dam,” he said.
Last week the Department of Water and Sanitation and Jagersfontein Developments said they had received an engineering report from SKR Consulting which stated that the dam was safe.
Spoor said: “I don’t know how the engineers and the Department of Water and Sanitation dealt with the excess of dumping in the dam. They better have an answer. That dam was also supposed to stop operating in 2020. It wasn’t designed to take more tailings that it was taking every year,” he said.
Spoor, who has launched class actions around asbestos, gold mining, coal mining and Tiger Brands, among others, said he wasn’t sure if he would pursue a class action against Jagersfontein Developments.
“I don’t believe that Jagersfontein Developments have substantial assets. It is a very substantial claim. The environmental damage is significant, and it’s going to cost a lot of money to clean that up.
“We’ve heard that departments have been assisting families. Emergency assistance, those kinds of costs, they can also recover,” he said.
Spoor said he hadn’t received an answer from the government as to whether if would participate if class action were to be pursued.
“We can go way wider than the personal harm and loss suffered by families. Or, do we limit ourselves to the families?” he said.
“I don’t think we’re going to be able to recover from Jagersfontein (Developments) unless they are very well insured. It looks as if we have to find a way to go after the shareholders, being Stargems and Johann Rupert's business, Reinet Investments.
“Class action is academic if you can’t recover any damages, and I think Jagersfontein mine is in deep trouble, and it’s hard to see them surviving.
“I think it’s going to be essential that if the state and the community are going to recover the damages, then we must find a way to hold the shareholders liable. And that is one of the things that we’re looking at, on what basis can they be held liable?” Spoor said.
According to Spoor, there was also the question of the liability of the engineers. He said there was an interesting aspect relating to engineers and their responsibilities. For example, if they are compiling reports on the conditions of dams, regulations require them to exercise a public function, which means it’s not just a private job that they are doing, which means that they can be held liable.
“We know that in June 2021 the department reversed its position that the tailings dam should be closed and agreed to open it. Now they would have done that based on an engineer’s report. You ask yourself, what kind of report was this? How good was it?” he said.
Spoor said his company was in the process of identifying defendants should a class action be launched.
“We are looking at defendants and the cause of action that we can formulate to bring them in because if we confine ourselves to Jagersfontein Developments, I'm concerned that there’s no money to clean up the space and to compensate people adequately,” he said.
Meanwhile, De Beers said De Beers Consolidated Mines (DBCM) purchased the Jagersfontein mine in 1947 and operated it until 1971 when operations ceased. It performed further sampling work on the mine on several occasions in subsequent decades, but on each occasion the decision was taken not to resume operations, and the mine remained dormant until it was sold.
“DBCM began the sale process in 2008 and then sold the mine in 2010 with a focus on delivering sustainable benefit to the Jagersfontein community. As such, the proposed transaction required participation by the Jagersfontein community, not only with employment opportunities and community initiatives but also through equity ownership of the mine.
“The assets were sold to the Superkolong Consortium, a broad-based BEE holding company for several mining operations, including alluvial diamond operations,” De Beers said.
The Jagersfontein mine started operating in 1870, which predates the Kimberley discoveries.
“Regarding mine closure plans, we do indeed have robust rehabilitation plans in place for when our mines close. However, this mine was not closed as it was sold to the Superkolong Consortium, so rehabilitation activities were not implemented,” it said.
BUSINESS REPORT