The aim of the research focuses on characterizing heavy mineral assemblages and interpretation of the provenance of the Ecca Group of in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. In South Africa, the Ecca Group outcrops extensively in the Main Karoo Basin. Mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, minor conglomerate and coal are the major constituent lithologies within the group. For descriptive purposes, the Ecca is categorized into three different geographical areas: the southern area, the western and northwestern area and the northeastern area. Six of the sixteen geological formations, namely the Prince Albert, Whitehill, Collingham, Ripon, Fort Brown, Waterford and Koonap Formations are present in the study area and are best exposed in road cuttings. For purposes of comparison, the underlying Witteberg Group, the Dwyka (which has Formation status here), and the overlying Koonap Formation of the Beaufort Group, are included in the study. This study is motivated by the relatively little information that is available on the heavy minerals of the Ecca Group, and that research of this nature had not been undertaken in the study area before. Another contributing motivation was to determine whether heavy mineral assemblages could be used to identify formations of the Ecca Group and for correlating between different localities in accordance with studies done elsewhere. Additionally, diagnostic heavy mineral assemblages could aid with stratigraphic selection of future boreholes in the Ecca Group. Heavy minerals are natural provenance tracers because of their stable nature and hydrodynamic behaviour. They are both non-opaque and opaque, with apatite, epidote, garnet, rutile, staurolite, tourmaline and zircon being good examples of non-opaque grains while ilmenite and magnetite are the most common opaques. Heavies are either derived from stable minor accessory minerals or from abundant but unstable mafic components of the host rock. They are very useful in interpreting the provenance due to the fact that some minerals are diagnostic of certain source rocks. However, sediments are exposed to several factors (conditions) such as weathering, erosion, breakage due to abrasion, mixing and recycling during transportation from the source to the depositional area. This implies that there are parameters other than the parent lithology that determine their final composition.

This research explored the nature of conflict that arose in Xolobeni, a small area in the Mbizana Local Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, and the environmental politics emanating from the arguments that supported development rather than environmental protection. The proposed mining project was known as the Xolobeni mining development project within the Amadiba Tribal Authority, an area dominated by Pondos or (Mpondos). The Xolobeni area is located between the Mzamba and Mtentu Rivers, covering some 2 867 hectares, and extends for 20km along the coast of the Mbizana Local Municipality, in the Alfred Nzo District Municipality. In 2005, the Minister of the National Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), now known as the Department of Minerals and Petroleum Resources, announced that an Australian company, Transworld Energy and Minerals (TEM) will establish a mining development project in Xolobeni to mine red sand dunes which are contained within five blocks, each named after the river at its southern boundary. These blocks were Mtentu, Sikombe, Kwanyana, Mnyameni and Mphalane. According to the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002), the Department of Minerals and Energy is the sole custodian of the mining licence and therefore the only Department that issues mining licences. The research investigated the nature of conflict that erupted in Xolobeni after this announcement, resulting in the formation of two groups namely, the Amadiba Crisis Committee (ACC) which represented the communities who were against the mining project in the area and the Xolobeni Local Community (Xolco) which was a Black Economic Empowerment company that represented the communities that supported the mining project and was to receive 26 percent of the proceeds from the mining company. The purpose of the Amadiba Crisis Committee was to channel complaints and grievances of local residents emanating from the mining development project and other development to all relevant authorities so that the Constitutional rights of residents can be respected. The research also investigated the role of each stakeholder in the proposed mining project, namely, local communities in the area, environmentalists, councillors, the National Department of Minerals and Energy, the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA), the traditional authority and the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature Portfolio Committee on Economic Development and Environmental Affairs. Central to this research was the level of consultation during the proposed mining project. Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies were used to collect data in Xolobeni. Interviews were conducted with the two opposing groups and other various stakeholders including the chieftaincy, environmentalists, councillors and officials in the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA). The researcher used questionnaires in order to get the views of the targeted participants. Eighty questionnaires were distributed among the targeted participants but only forty five were returned. Some of the participants were reluctant to participate in this study because the mining project had not taken place. Secondary data from the Departments of Environment of Affairs nationally and provincially revealed that the Department of Minerals and Energy through its Minister, Bulelwa Sonjica, awarded the mining licence despite recommendations of both Departments not to do so. The Minister of the new Department of Mineral Resources, Susan Shabangu, withdrew the licence and gave three months to Transworld Energy and Minerals to address the outstanding issues raised in the environmental impact assessment (EIA). The data collected revealed that the proposed mining project affected all communities in the Amadiba Tribal Administrative area. The research also illustrated how the Xolobeni community organised themselves and protested against development that intended to force them to relocate from their ancestral land without proper consultation. Issues of sustainable development and environmental protection also formed part of the discussions in this research. While the mining project had stalled, it emerged that the majority of respondents in the area did not want the mining project to proceed.