Full Disclosure 2016

AngloGold Ashanti Limited's disclosure of environmental non-compliances in annual reports

2016 update

2015 company reports

AngloGold’s 2015 Sustainability Report states that four reportable environmental incidents occurred during the year. Of these, one took place in South Africa. The South African incident reportedly occurred at the Vaal River on 30 November 2015 and is described as follows:

A pipeline failure spilled tailings into a stormwater trench. Approximately 50-75kL entered the Vaal River.¹

The report states that the following corrective action was taken:

The plant was stopped. Water samples were taken at the spillage site and downstream in the river. The free cyanide level in the tailings material was below 1 ppm. The tailings flow in the trench was stopped by creating earth bunds.²

In relation to water management, AngloGold reports that:

In South Africa, at both our West Wits and Vaal River operations, some neighbouring mines (not owned by AngloGold Ashanti), have ceased operations. As a result, groundwater is flooding into inactive working areas. In both cases, our sites are downstream from the neighbouring mines and subterranean water is moving slowly towards our operations. As water from these neighbouring operations reaches our shafts, it is intercepted, pumped out and, as far as possible, also incorporated into our process water circuits. Given that we have to mitigate the threat of flooding through evacuating this excess water, and notwithstanding the additional cost of pumping it to the surface, being able to utilise it to the benefit of our operations is a positive outcome. This is particularly pertinent as 2015 was a dry year for South Africa.³

AngloGold provides the following report on the class-action litigation against it and other gold mines brought in August 2013:

On 21 August 2013, an application was served on AngloGold Ashanti for the consolidation of the previous class action brought by attorneys Richard Spoor and Charles Abrahams. The applicants request certification of two classes (the “Silicosis class” and the “Tuberculosis class”). The Silicosis class would consist of certain current and former underground mineworkers who have contracted silicosis, and the dependants of certain deceased mineworkers who have died of silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any other disease). The Tuberculosis class would consist of certain current and former mineworkers who have or had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis and the dependants of certain deceased mineworkers who died of pulmonary tuberculosis (but excluding silico-tuberculosis). The application to certify the class action was heard from 12 to 16 October 2015. We await the judgement.⁴

With respect to penalties for non-compliance, the report states that there were “no significant environmental fines in 2015” and that “these are defined as environmental fines above $100 000”.⁵

The 2015 Sustainability Report does not contain any further specific references to environmental incidents, incidents of non-compliance, sanctions or community complaints related to environmental matters.

Full Disclosure 2015

AngloGold has its own incident reporting system, based on five levels of incident classification: minor, moderate, high, major and extreme.

2009 company reports

The 2009 Sustainable Development Report states that “all incidents are recorded at site level and reported locally as appropriate”, and “incidents falling into the high, major and extreme categories are reported to the relevant board committee and in this report”.⁶ Incidents falling below such levels of severity are therefore not reported to shareholders or to the public. A separate document entitled ‘Environmental Incident Classification Criteria’ states that incidents in the high, major and extreme categories are reported to the ‘corporate office’, but in relation to minor and moderate incidents, only the number is reported to the ‘corporate office’.⁷

Under the previous reporting criteria applicable prior to 2009, significantly more incidents were recorded. The previous criteria defined a major environmental incident as “an incident which could affect the company’s reputation or which would result in a cost to the company exceeding $100 000, including fines, compensation, clean-up, loss of production, and anticipated litigation costs”.⁸

The 2009 Sustainable Development Report provided incident statistics for 2007 to 2009 under both the current and previous criteria for comparison purposes. In 2007 there were 49 incidents under the new criteria and 48 under the old. In 2008 there were 55 incidents under the new criteria and 160 under the old. In 2009 there were 50 incidents under the new criteria and 195 under the old. The noticeable difference in figures is attributed by AngloGold to the fact that under the old criteria, SO₂ emissions (particularly at the East Gold Acid Float Plant Vaal River) which exceeded a guideline threshold were reported. This threshold was reported to be below regulatory limits, but exceedances were reported as they were regarded as relevant to the company’s reputation. Under the new classification system, such incidents would be categorised as minor or moderate (unless there was a breach of a regulatory threshold).⁹

During the 2009 reporting period, of the 50 environmental incidents reported by the company, 35 occurred in South Africa.¹⁰ 50% of the 50 related to unauthorised discharges, 34% related to pipeline failure, 10% related to air emissions and 6% were attributed to “other loss of containment”.¹¹ The East Gold Acid Float Plant Vaal River, a 40 year old plant, was specifically mentioned in relation to SO₂ emissions, which were said to be a “continuing cause of concern” with 5 major incidents in the year.¹² The sulphuric acid section of this plant was subsequently closed.¹³

2010 company reports

In 2010 the company reported 27 incidents¹⁴ including 10 in South Africa.¹⁵ Of these 10, 1 occurred at Vaal River operations and the others occurred as West Wits operations.¹⁶ In 2010 it was also reported that groundwater pollution due to seepage from mining activities was one of the main environmental challenges at Vaal River operations. All 2010 South African incidents were dam overflows.¹⁷

2011 company reports

In 2011 the company reported 27 incidents,¹⁸ 12 of which occurred in South Africa.¹⁹ Of these 12, 10 occurred at Vaal River operations and 2 occurred as West Wits operations.²⁰

It was further reported that the company’s dust mitigation programme was accelerated during the year as increased dust levels were measured at a community area near a tailings storage facility in the Vaal River area.²¹

Risks for the South African region were identified, including “the potential for discharge of polluted water into the environment, either directly or indirectly as a result of seepage from tailings facilities and polluted water; polluted land beyond current mining boundaries as a result of discharges; air pollution and land contamination as a result of windblown dust from tailings storage facilities”.²²

2012 company reports

In 2012 the company reported 16 incidents,²³ 10 of which occurred in South Africa at Vaal River operations.²⁴

It was also stated in the 2012 report that “the potential for inter-mine flooding and water legacy issues continued to be environmental challenges” in the South African region.²⁵

2013 company reports

In 2013 the company reported 10 incidents,²⁶ including 3 in South Africa.²⁷ The 3 South African incidents occurred at the Mine Waste Solutions (MWS) operation, one of AngloGold’s surface operations. The following details are provided in the 2013 report: the tailings pipeline from Mine Waste Solutions to the tailings storage facility failed following the illegal removal of a part of the pipeline and this led to a spillage. Following this the company temporarily suspended operations and containment walls were built to contain the spill. It was also reported that after remediation efforts “water quality in the Koekemoer Spruit, near MWS, had largely returned to pre-spillage conditions in the weeks following the incident”.²⁸ It is unclear whether these details relate solely to one of the reported environmental incidents, or to all of them.

Also noted here is the fact that “potential for inter-mine flooding at both the Vaal River and West Wits operations remains a risk and major focus area, compounded by the failure of neighbouring mines to contribute to pumping costs. At year-end, AngloGold Ashanti was pumping water from underground operations that it does not own and that have ceased working, to prevent flooding of its current mine workings.”²⁹

The 2013 report also contained information on AngloGold’s contribution to acid mine drainage in the Witwatersrand Basin. It stated that, “(m)ost of the water used to transport process slurries to tailings storage facilities…drains to return water dams and is recycled into the water circuit; however some water evades capture and seeps into underground aquifers. Rainwater falling on waste rock dumps can also dissolve salts as it percolates through a dump and also end up underground. When this water and the water that has naturally seeped underground from elsewhere comes into contact with sulphide-bearing minerals (pyrites), possibly as a result of mining, the water can become acidic, and is known as acid rock drainage.”³⁰

2014 company reports

In 2014 the company reported 5 environmental incidents³¹ including 1 in South Africa.³² The incident in South Africa occurred at the Mine Waste Solutions operation and involved the overflow of water from the return water dam and slurry containment area and resulting discharge into the adjacent watercourse.³³

In response to a PAIA request submitted by the CER for records indicating the names of mines and industrial facilities in respect of which notices or directives under the National Water Act have been issued, the Department of Water & Sanitation responded with information which indicated that Mine Waste Solutions was issued with a directive under the National Water Act on 23 June 2014. As this presumably relates to the same 2014 incident, AngloGold failed to report that it had received a directive.

International Cyanide Management Code

The use of cyanide in the gold recovery process prompted the formation of the International Cyanide Management Code, a voluntary initiative set up by a multi-stakeholder steering committee under the guidance of the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Council on Mining and Metals (then the International Council on Metals and the Environment) to promote the responsible use of cyanide in gold mining and to reduce the potential environmental impacts of cyanide. Cyanide Code certification is available to certify proper management of this hazardous material.

In 2009, it was reported that 63% of AngloGold’s operations were fully certified against the Code.³⁴  In 2010 it was reported that 15 of the 19 operations using cyanide were compliant,³⁵ in 2011 the number increased to 16³⁶ and in 2013 15 operations were said to be certified.³⁷ In 2014 it was reported that out of the 20 plants using cyanide 15 operations are certified.³⁸