THE company that wants to explore for gas in the Cranemere area of the Karoo has refused to answer questions raised in terms of the required public participation process prescribed by South African mining law.

Responding to a 38-page letter containing 110 questions from Woolhead Holdings, the owners of Samara Private Game Reserve, Bundu Gas & Oil Exploration said it was clear that Samara was opposed to the project. Consequently, it would not be responding.

Some of these questions were already raised verbally at a public meeting in Pearston a month ago, the first step of the public participation process prescribed by the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) – and the same thing happened.

The May 22 meeting was hosted by Bundu, and two of the directors, Peter Price from Johannesburg and American John Zetzman from Texas, attended. They were bombarded with a barrage of questions from the audience, which included landowners, conservation and tourism officials, township community representatives and media.

The two Bundu directors refused to answer a number of these questions, including ones about the project‘s empowerment aspect, the number of jobs that would be generated, ownership of the company, why Bundu thinks there is gas when extensive exploration by Soekor 40 years ago revealed very little, and details of the exploration procedure.

At the end of the meeting, attorney Derek Light, for Samara, presented the questions and other concerns in writing to Bundu‘s consultant from Environmental Management Services (EIMS), Liam Whitlow.

Light received a response from EIMS on Friday for the first time which, he said, “recognises a lot of the environmental concerns raised by (Samara)”.

In particular EIMS now recognised the sensitivity of the thicket vegetation on the property and the importance of the rehabilitation and carbon sequestration project centred on this vegetation, he said. EIMS has recommended that the experts involved in this project be consulted if gas exploration is approved.

Samara argues that the “duty of care” principle enshrined in the National Environmental Management Act (Nema) should be regarded as fundamental and that a full environmental impact assessment should be done as opposed to the less comprehensive “management programme” required by the MPRDA.

“Although EIMS has not conceded this, this response is still a big step forward from their not responding at all,” Light said. However, he noted, within the consultant‘s response, many questions were not answered and were simply referred to Bundu.

“Bundu has still not responded. One of the many related points, when and if this happens, is: ‘Will the company comply with the recommendations of its consultant?‘”

Light said South African law was clear that, if someone was affected by an administrative decision, he had the right to information about it. “This applies equally to decisions in terms of the MPRDA. This right is further protected by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.

“It goes to the fundamental point of how we comment meaningfully on the merits of this proposed activity if they will not tell us who they are and what they are going to do.”

Bundu was relying on privilege relating to trade secrets, but this technical exception to the fundamental principle of transparency was unacceptable, he said.

Dr Mike Cohen, committee member of the Interim Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners, who is the former head of provincial nature conservation and now a senior EIA consultant in PE, said “transparency and openness” were fundamentals in the assessment process.

“If the consultant does not understand the process, he cannot assess the impact. You cannot expect interested and affected parties to comment without information.”

If the trade secrets clause was being used, it should always be scrutinised in terms of seeing how vital it actually was and whether the concerns underpinning it could be dealt with in another way.

Contacted at his office in Johannesburg for his input, Price of Bundu said he had “no comment” to make and put the phone down.

Five questions were sent to Petroleum Agency SA last Thursday, to get the agency‘s opinion about the matter, and receipt was confirmed.

Referring to the questions as “allegations”, the agency‘s regulations general manager, Lindiwe Mekwe, said on Friday that she would not commit to any suggested deadlines and would respond “in good time”. No response had been received by the time of going to print.