OFFSHORE EXPLORATION

[Lisbeth]

Port St Johns in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. (Photo: Flickr)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 10 Nov 2021

Activists say the survey, to search for oil and gas, will disrupt and threaten marine life, and adversely affect fishing communities in the area.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Marine activists in the Eastern Cape have voiced their anger after Shell announced that it will start a three-dimensional seismic survey in search of oil and gas deposits from Morgan Bay to Port St Johns starting on December 1.

Shell has appointed Shearwater GeoServices to conduct the survey, which will last from four to five months and cover 6,011km² of ocean surface. The survey area is located more than 20km from the coast, with its closest point in water depths ranging between 700m and 3km.

In an attempt to stop the survey, the Oceans Not Oil coalition has launched a petition to the Environment, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Barbara Creecy, calling for her to withdraw the approval of the application.

The petition had close to 13,000 signatures on Tuesday.

Oceans Not Oil founder Janet Solomon said many sea creatures could be affected by the survey.

“At a time when world leaders are making promises and decisions to step away from fossil fuels because climate science has shown we cannot burn our existing reserves, offshore oil and gas [exploration programme] Operation Phakisa is pushing ever harder to get its hands on a local supply of gas,” she said.

Masifundise Development Trust programme manager Carmen Mannarino said they have concerns about the impact the survey will have on the ecosystem and the livelihoods of small-scale fishing communities in the area.

“As we have seen in other areas of the country and the world, these kinds of activities can be highly disruptive for the marine fauna, and change patterns of migration and movement of fish species. This leads to fishing communities not having the same access and reduced harvests,” said Mannarino.

“Eastern Cape fishing communities have fought for decades to be recognised and to be granted fishing rights, only to see their natural resources being sold off in the name of extractive profit-making.”

Coastal Links Eastern Cape chairperson Ntsindiso Nongcavu said the survey comes as a shock to them as fishers in Port St Johns.

“This will kill our businesses because you can’t open a mine where there is fishing. Our government does not want to listen to the people and ask what kind of a development they need in that area; instead they are being used by businesses,” he said.

The decision was taken without looking at the environmental effects of the seismic survey, he said.

“In Richards Bay about 34 whales died when this same survey was done there. My concern is that there are other species here like the crayfish and other species of fish which we as fishers live on.”

Nongcavu said they will mobilise communities to oppose the survey.

“We are totally against the drilling of oil and gas in the ocean. What help will this bring to the communities in the area?”

Nongcavu said it is shocking that Creecy would allow this after issuing fishing licences to them recently.

“Where does she think we will fish when they allow this?”

He said there had been no public participation.


The area where the seismic survey is expected to be conducted

East London museum scientist Kevin Cole said seismic surveys produce a continuous underwater noise (greater than 230 decibels using an array of airguns) day and night for months and this will have a negative impact on marine life evolved to rely on sound as a primary sense in the dark oceanic environment.

“Marine animals are highly sensitive to acoustic sound. Marine fish and mammals depend on sound for communicating with group members and young, food-finding, reproduction, avoiding predators and hazards, navigation and sensing their environment,” he said.

Cole said there is no baseline research on the effects seismic surveys will have on this particular marine environment, and seismic surveys in general have been known to have the following effects on marine life:

• Physical – causing embolisms and damage to body tissue, and temporary or permanent hearing loss.

• Stress – causing changes in body physiology which may affect growth and reproduction and result in death.

• Behavioural changes – in cetaceans (dolphins, whales and porpoises) these involve a change in dive times and time spent at the surface and loss of energy from moving over large distances to get away from disturbing sounds. Foraging and nursing may also be affected. Cetacean calves separated from their mothers because of high noise levels would be unable to suckle.

Cole said even though it is proposed that these surveys take place out of the migratory season (May to November) of the more notable larger species such as humpback and southern right whales, semi-migratory and other species, such as the deep-diving beaked whales, Bryde’s whales and sperm whales, will be in the area during the survey period (December to April).

“One of the beaked whales, called True’s, has never been seen alive at sea – they are known only from strandings in our area so we have no clear understanding of their distribution, abundance and behaviour,” he said.

He said deep-diving beaked whales may surface too quickly and die from barotrauma as a result of seismic blasting.

“South Africa does not have an environmental management plan which considers an ecosystems approach to fisheries management (EAF). The EAF is being promoted by fisheries scientists in South Africa,” said Cole.

He said South Africa does not have a national guideline document related specifically to the undertaking of seismic surveys in SA waters.

The Marine Living Resources Act 1998 does not specifically refer to seismic considerations in the protection of marine mammals. It has been suggested that a Marine Mammal Plan be drafted to guide environmental management plans for potentially detrimental activities in the oceans, including seismic surveys.

“Research should be undertaken to determine areas [in the proposed survey range] that provide potential year-round critical habitats to endangered marine species, including key fish species. This will require the collation of baseline ecological data – considering an ecosystems approach to the whole area in question,” Cole said.

He said a synthesis of this information should be tabled before an exploration permit is considered.

“Stand-alone marine faunal assessments or fisheries assessments normally included as part of an environmental management plan for an exploration permit will not suffice as these are only assessments and do not consider the ecosystem as a whole,” added Cole.

He said that because many marine animals use sound as their primary tool to navigate, communicate and to orientate within the relatively dark environment of the sea, anthropogenic noise (such as seismic surveys) will negatively affect marine animals by interfering with important aspects of their lives such as foraging, schooling and migrating, mating (masking of mating calls) and disruption of homing or orientation.

“Acoustic pollution is on the increase in South Africa. The development of the oceans/blue economy is being bolstered by initiatives without adequate environmental checks and balances in place, which will have a severe impact on marine species and marine ecosystems. Marine acoustic pollution (including ships’ noise) is currently under-researched and unregulated in South Africa – this is of concern.”

Pam Ntaka, a spokesperson for Shell Downstream South Africa, said a full stakeholder’s consultation process was undertaken in 2013 as part of the development of the environmental management programme.

“The consultation process was aligned with the requirements of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act and environmental management programme guidelines as part of the National Environmental Management Act.

“A stakeholder database was compiled by an independent environmental practitioner, which included government authorities (local and regional), non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations and industry groups, including the fishing industry.”

Ntaka said adverts were placed in the media informing the broader public about the proposed exploration activities and inviting them to provide input into the environmental management programme process.

“A series of face-to-face engagements took place, which included three group meetings in Gqeberha, East London and Port St Johns.”

Ntaka said they had obtained environmental authorisation for the project in 2014. The environmental compliance audit was done by an independent specialist in 2020 and was approved by the government in July 2020.

Ntaka added that a significant amount of research had been conducted globally on seismic surveys and their impact on marine environment.

“The impacts are well understood and mitigated against when performing seismic surveys. This is supported by decades of scientific research and the establishment of international best practice guidelines.”

She said there is no indication that seismic surveys are linked to strandings.

“This can be verified through environmental specialists and the outcomes of autopsy results on stranded whales and dolphins along the coast of South Africa.”

Ntaka said Shell adopts the most stringent of controls and follows international best practice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee guidelines for conducting seismic operations.

“This, in combination with the mitigation measures outlined in the environmental management programme, ensures we are conducting seismic surveys safely with regard to marine animals and the environment.”

She said the mitigation measures include an exclusion zone of 500m around the sound source that is monitored 24 hours a day by independent marine mammal observers on board the seismic vessel.

“The exclusion zone around the sound source guarantees that no animals will come into the near-vicinity of the sound source.”

Ntaka said if any animal enters the exclusion zone, operations are immediately shut down.

“A pre-watch must be conducted for at least 60 minutes to confirm there is no marine animal within the exclusion zone before operations can commence.”

The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries did not respond to questions sent to them on Thursday last week. DM/OBP

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... ern%20Cape

[Lisbeth]

Shell’s Wild Coast seismic survey plan encounters fierce resistance from South Africans


Environmentalists protest against Shell’s proposed exploration for oil and gas under the ocean floor along the Wild Coast, 21 November 2021. (Photo: Keanu Haumahu)

By Tony Carnie | 25 Nov 2021

Oil and gas exploration off the Eastern Cape coast by the Anglo-Dutch multinational is scheduled to start in December. But fishers, residents, environmentalists and activists around the country want none of it.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Residents and grassroots environmentalists will ramp up pressure against the government and fossil fuel giant Shell next week to call off the hunt for oil and gas in the Eastern Cape’s remote marine environment, off what is known as the Wild Coast.

This follows news that Shell plans to embark on its major seismic survey off the coast between Morgan Bay in the south and Port St Johns in the north from 1 December. It involves blasting soundwaves into the sea with air guns every 10 seconds for the next four to five months, raising concerns about the impact of underwater noise on fish, whales and other marine life.

Though the survey will not involve drilling at this stage, the plan raises broader concerns around sea pollution, climate change, national energy policy and the future development of the region if Shell were to discover commercial quantities of oil or gas off this coast.

But for now, the immediate concern is the impact of blasting waves of sound of up to 220 decibels into a marine environment abundant with fish and seafood resources, to map oil and gas pockets beneath the ocean floor.

More than 250,000 people had signed an online petition at the time of publication, demanding that the government pull the plug on Shell’s exploration plan.

Protests up and down the coast

At a local level, subsistence fishing communities are also raising their voices. They are planning protests and there are indications that some groups may seek a court interdict. A march along Wild Coast beaches on Sunday 5 December starts at the Mzamba River Estuary, according to Amadiba Crisis Committee co-founder Nonhle Mbuthuma.

The committee, which has also been resisting plans for a new toll road and dune mining operations along this coastline, were surprised that Shell would start a new oil and gas exploration project barely a month after the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

“As a part of Operation Phakisa, Shell’s project has been allowed by our government, as if the threat of global heating from burning more and more fossil fuels doesn’t exist,” said Mbuthuma. Operation Phakisa is the government’s fast-track economic programme, which includes unlocking potential in South Africa’s oceans.

The Amadiba committee says blasting sonar canons poses a direct threat to marine life. “It is also a threat against the livelihood of communities along the Wild Coast and in KwaZulu-Natal, who use the riches of the sea to put food on the table and to get an income. This is our ‘ocean’s economy’. It is about food, not about mining the ocean to make profit for the minority rich who think you can eat money.”


The coastline around Morgan Bay in the Eastern Cape, 10 March 2009. (Photo: Gallo Images)

Aside from the future risk of oil pollution if Shell finds viable volumes of hydrocarbons, the committee says that drilling the seabed could release other toxic substances into the marine environment.

“For over two decades, the coastal Amadiba community has fought against opencast mining on our land. Now we must also fight against mining of the ocean. Indigenous people along the whole coast of Africa must have the right to say no to projects that threaten their livelihoods, the right to free prior and informed consent.

“We call upon the South African government to acknowledge the climate crisis. More and more expansion of the fossil fuel economy is not the solution to the economic crisis. You cannot bring about economic recovery by threatening our livelihoods and the ecology of the ocean … Put the lives of people before profits. Withdraw the licence given to Shell for preparing mining in the ocean,” said Mbuthuma.

Members of the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, including those from the KwaZulu-Natal Subsistence Fisherfolk Forum, are planning a “massive protest” in the Durban area on 9 or 10 December, according to alliance coordinator Desmond D’Sa.

“No one was told or consulted about this, and we cannot allow Shell to risk destroying our marine resources,” he said.

Strategic moves

The government originally granted an exploration permit to Impact Africa, a subsidiary of Impact Oil & Gas, in 2014. It later transferred some of its financial interests to ExxonMobil and a subsidiary of Norwegian group Statoil, now called Equinor. Shell entered the picture in November 2020, when it acquired a 50% interest in the exploration venture, with the remaining 50% held by Impact Africa.

Shell’s environmental consultants placed an advert in East London newspaper the Daily Dispatch in early November, advising that a seismic survey along the Wild Coast would begin around 1 December.

The standard Dear Sir/Madam letter that Shell’s consultants sent to a limited number of registered stakeholders says the survey covers an area of more than 6,000km² at depths of 700m to 3,000m. The exploration area is about 20km from the coastline at its closest point, according to the consultants.

That’s about the distance by car from Shell South Africa’s swanky headquarters in Sloane Street, Byranston, to the former head office of the ANC at Shell House in Plein Street, Braamfontein, in Johannesburg — cold comfort given that oil spills can spread rapidly over hundreds of kilometres.

Recalling the 1995 execution of Nigerian activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and the well-documented impact of oil pollution in the Niger Delta, D’Sa said Shell cannot be trusted to operate responsibly in Africa.


A map shows the area where Shell plans to search for oil and gas reserves. (Image: SLR Consulting)

He drew attention to Shell’s recent announcement that it plans to relocate its headquarters and tax residence to London and drop the words Royal Dutch from its name, amid a corporate overhaul that has angered the Netherlands.

“This move to London makes it easier for them to not adhere to the demands for major carbon emission reductions,” said D’Sa, noting that a Dutch court recently ordered Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. The landmark case, brought by environmental groups and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens, applies only in the Netherlands.

The Dutch pension fund for civil servants and teachers, APB, has announced that it will no longer invest in producers of oil, gas and coal. APB will also dispense with its current investments in those sectors, including in Shell, by the first quarter of 2023.

“We will stand up against Shell and continue to expose its hypocrisy,” said D’Sa. “They claim to be committed to a just transition towards renewable energy, yet continue to destroy the health of our oceans. We don’t want any oil washing up on our beaches, especially along the Wild Coast.”

Dated consultation

Shell media officials in the United Kingdom did not respond to queries about the growing opposition to its survey plans. However, following a request to environmental consultancy SLR, Shell South Africa provided a copy of its final environmental management programme for the exploration survey. The 548-page document, dated June 2013, does not appear to be available currently for public scrutiny.

Shell also provided a standard “media responses” sheet in which the oil company says “a full stakeholder consultation process was undertaken … for this project in 2013”. This process included publishing a background information document in four newspapers and a series of “face-to-face engagements, which included three group meetings (in an ‘open house’ format) in Port Elizabeth, East London and Port St Johns.”

In response to concerns about how underwater blasting would affect the marine environment, Shell maintained that “the impacts are well understood and mitigated against when performing seismic surveys. This is supported by decades of scientific research and the establishment of international best practice guidelines.

“There is no indication that seismic surveys are linked to (whale and dolphin) strandings.”


A small shoal of East Coast red-eye herring form a ball to protect themselves from predators during the annual sardine run in the deep waters off Port St Johns. (Photo: Cormac McCreesh/Gallo Images)

Shell further asserted that establishing a 500m exclusion zone around the sound-blasting ship “guarantees that no animals will come into the near vicinity of the sound source … If any animal enters the exclusion zone, operations are immediately shut down.”

It did not explain how observers could detect marine animals not easily visible from the surface during daylight or at night, but suggested that sound levels could be ramped up slowly to alert marine animals to “gradually move away from the sound source”.

Significantly, in a recent presentation to a South African conservation science symposium, international fish bioacoustics experts Anthony Hawkins and Arthur Popper pointed out that there are still “major gaps in our knowledge” about the impacts of underwater noise, particularly the more subtle biological impacts, the effects of underwater particle motion and whether current guidelines to regulate noise in different parts of the world’s oceans are still appropriate. DM

First published by New Frame.

[Lisbeth]

Shell to go ahead with Wild Coast seismic survey despite backlash and Express Petroleum pullout


Protesters at the Waterfront in Cape Town, South Africa, on 21 November 2021 awaiting the arrival of the Amazon Warrior. They are against the planned Shell seismic survey for oil and gas in the ocean. (Photo: Gallo Images / Brenton Geach)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 29 Nov 2021

With Shell’s planned Wild Coast seismic survey starting on Wednesday, Border Deep Sea Angling Association says it will go to court to stop the survey, while Express Petroleum has cut ties with Shell.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With only a day to go before a seismic survey in search of oil and gas starts on the Eastern Cape’s Wild Coast, the backlash continues between Shell and environmental activists who are calling for the survey to be halted.

Cullinan & Associates, acting on behalf of Border Deep Sea Angling Association’s (BDSAA’s), Kei Mouth Ski Boat Club and Natural Justice, sent follow-up letters to the Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy, and Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment on November 23.

On Friday, Express Petroleum, a fuel supplier that owns 35 stations in the Eastern Cape, cut ties with Shell and dropped Shell branding from all its stations and vehicles.

However, Shell on Monday said it was continuing with the survey.

Over the weekend Daily Maverick reported that Shell’s planned seismic survey off the Wild Coast, which is due to begin on Wednesday, is just one of several offshore exploration projects under way or planned along the coast of South Africa. No less than four other explorations are in the pipeline or have already begun.

A petition – initially addressed to Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy and subsequently addressed to Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe – to withdraw approval for the Shell seismic survey had attracted 341,456 signatures by Monday.

Creecy has distanced herself and her department from the fallout. Spokesperson Albi Modise said Creecy and the environment department had not been involved in the decision-making process for the proposed exploration activities.

He said the application process had been finalised before the One Environmental System, which serves to integrate different aspects of the environmental management of mining activities, came into effect in December 2014.

He said the authorisation had been granted in 2014 under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act by the then minister of Mineral Resources, Ngoako Ramatlhodi.

Mantashe, the current minister, has declined to comment on the matter.

BDSAA Vice-Chair John Luef on Monday said BDSAA members are furious about the planned seismic survey.

“We have sent a very strong letter of objection to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, Barbara Creecy. Our lawyers, Cullinan & Associates, have sent follow-up letters,” he said.

Luef said it is ludicrous that the survey is even being considered as an option by the government in any of SA’s coastal waters, “let alone the extremely biodiverse and sensitive Wild Coast. We will not take this lying down and we will do all in our power to put a stop to it.”

He said the seismic blasting is a pending disaster and “that is why all citizens of this country should get involved with putting a stop to this absolute madness”.

BDSAA was taking this stance, said Luef, because:

• There is no evidence, scientific or other, that seismic blasting will not harm the extreme biodiversity of the Wild Coast and possibly create damage, confusion and even death to the many species of life in the ocean.

• The Wild Coast is home to endemic species such as the red steenbras, seventy-four and wreckfish as well as many other species of fish such as the dageraad, which are endangered to the verge of total collapse, and the planned blasting will take place in and adjacent to their breeding grounds.

• There is no proof or research available as to what damage will be done to the marine protected areas (MPAs) adjacent to the blasting. BDSAA members have noticed a significant increase in the catch rates of many species in recent times and this can be attributed, among other reasons, to how well the MPAs are working by fish becoming overpopulated and migrating out of the MPAs. All the hard work of protection in the past may come to nothing.

• The whole world is moving towards greener energy, yet our government, which attended COP26, has agreed to go ahead with this potential environmental disaster in a search for fossil fuels.

“The SA government and Minister Creecy are doing a 180 [degree turn] on what they have publicly stated is their mandate to facilitate an economic growth path that is equitable, inclusive, sustainable and environmentally sound. A path that is in line with our Constitution, promotes sustainable development and the right of all of us to enjoy an environment that is not harmful to our health or wellbeing. Proof that our sea creatures and environment will not be affected is what we want,” Luef said.

He said that BDSAA had formed the first three MPAs in Border waters, policed them and punished any of their members caught fishing in them.

“We eventually managed to get these MPAs to be promulgated into law by the government and have continually involved ourselves with policing them and environmental issues concerning the future of our heritage. We are proud of our involvement. BDSAA sees this seismic blasting as a pending disaster,” he said.

Express Petroleum last week said they are extremely passionate about South Africa and care deeply for the future sustainability of its coastline.

“We would like to make all our customers and concerned citizens aware that Express Petroleum are in no way involved nor do we support the much published seismic blasting occurring off the Wild Coast of South Africa by Shell,” said the company.

Express Petroleum said they had already been procuring product from alternative sources and had started debranding all of their co-branded retail sites as well as removing all Shell branding from their company vehicles and assets.

A Shell spokesperson on Monday said they are engaging with Express Petroleum directly.

“We plan to go ahead with the survey, because we have met all our legal obligations for the survey,” she said. DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

Choppy waters: More coastal surveys in the pipeline for South Africa


Protestors at the Waterfront waiting the arrival of the Amazon Warrior . They are against the planned Shell seismic survey for oil and gas in the ocean on November 21, 2021 in Cape Town, South Africa. It is reported that Shell has announced that it will carry out a three-dimensional seismic survey in search of oil and gas deposits from Morgan Bay to Port St Johns off the Wild Coast. (Photo by Gallo Images/Brenton Geach)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 29 Nov 2021

Almost the entire area of our offshore territory is under lease for oil and gas exploration, a conservationist says.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Shell’s planned seismic survey off the Wild Coast, which is due to begin on 1 December, is just one of several offshore exploration projects under way or planned along the coast of South Africa.

No less than four other explorations are in the pipeline or have already begun, research by DM168 has revealed.

The revelation comes as protests take place across the country against the proposed Shell exploration. Hundreds of activists demonstrated against the arrival of the Amazon Warrior – the ship that will do the surveying – at the Cape Town harbour on 21 November.

The protests, which include calls to boycott Shell petrol stations, are set to continue until the survey is abandoned.

A petition – initially addressed to Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy and subsequently addressed to Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe – to withdraw approval for the Shell seismic survey had attracted 291,000 signatures by 26 November.

Creecy has distanced herself and her department from the fallout. Spokesperson Albi Modise said Creecy and the Environment Department had not been involved in the decision-making process for the proposed exploration activities. He said the application process had been finalised before the One Environmental System, which serves to integrate different aspects of the environmental management of mining activities, came into effect in December 2014.

He said the authorisation had been granted in 2014 under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act by the then minister of the Department of Mineral Resources, Advocate Ngoako Ramatlhodi.

However, Gwede Mantashe, the current Department of Mineral Resources and Energy minister, has declined to comment on the matter. The minister said he would not contribute to “a negative story” by DM168. “You want me to contribute to your negative story about me? … Bhalani into zenu [which, loosely translated, means ‘write your own things’].”

Oceans Not Oil founder Janet Solomon said, if the government was doing nothing to stop the survey, they would be left with no option but to go to court.

Shell has appointed Shearwater Geo-Services to conduct the survey between Port St Johns and Morgan Bay over four to five months, covering 6,011km² of ocean surface. The survey area is more than 20km off the coast at its closest point and in water depths that range between 700m and 3km. The survey will be conducted by underwater seismic airgun blasts. Scientists and environmentalists have raised concerns about the “disastrous effects” of these assessments on marine organisms, animals and the environment.

Other planned exploration projects are:

CGG Services SAS has applied to the Petroleum Agency SA for a reconnaissance permit to undertake a speculative 3D survey of the area between Gqeberha and Plettenberg Bay. According to SLR Consulting, which has been appointed to undertake the required environmental management plan process for the application, the proposed survey would be up to 3,500km² in extent in an area of interest stretching roughly from Gqeberha to a point about 120km southeast of Plettenberg Bay. It is anticipated that the survey will take up to five months to complete, with January next year as the earliest possible commencement date.

In 2013, Sasol won the right to explore the block off South Africa’s southeast coast from the Petroleum Agency and, in 2014, Italian oil corporation Eni SpA became the operator of the ER236 exploration permit off the coast of KwaZulu-Natal from Richards Bay to Scottburgh with a 40% stake. In August 2019, the two companies were granted environmental authorisation to drill for hydrocarbons in the middle of seven marine protected areas. However, last month, Eni reportedly pulled out over concerns about the technical challenges of drilling in deep waters as well as delays in the passing of the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill, South Africa’s draft oil exploration and production law.

Environmentalists warn that the high-noise blasting of sonar cannons underwater for seismic testing is a threat to whales, dolphins, fish and other marine life. (Graphic: Jocelyn Adamson)
Spectrum has applied to the Petroleum Agency for a seismic reconnaissance permit to undertake a multiclient speculative 2D seismic survey in the Orange Basin, off the West Coast. The proposed survey area covers a single target area between the Namibian border in the north up to a point about 80km southwest of Cape Point. Should the permit be awarded, the survey is expected to start in December, and will run for five months.

Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) has applied for a reconnaissance permit for an area that extends between the 15km buffer line and 250km offshore from Richards Bay to Mossel Bay. The proposed 2D survey will cover two target areas with a total length of between 2,000 and 8,000km and the proposed 3D survey will cover three target areas with a total extent of between 3,000 and 10,000km.

You cannot bring about economic recovery by threatening our livelihoods and the ecology of the ocean. You cannot solve one problem by creating a new problem. Put the lives of people before profits. Withdraw the licence given to Shell for preparing to mine in the ocean.

Speaking to DM168, Dr Judy Mann, a conservation strategist at the SA Association for Marine Biological Research’s Oceanographic Research Institute, said almost the entire area of South Africa’s offshore territory is under lease for oil and gas exploration.

“Internationally, seismic surveys have been demonstrated to have negative impacts on a range of marine organisms, from smaller creatures that live in sediments or as plankton, and larger animals such as fishes and marine mammals. Marine mammals, in particular, appear to be the most impacted by seismic surveys because of their reliance on sound for communication, to find food and to navigate,” she said.

Mann said many of the marine and coastal habitats off South Africa’s east coast are unique and support a high ecological diversity, much of which is not found elsewhere. In addition, deep-water habitats (those below 500m) are largely unexplored ecologically.

She said although research had shown that the impacts on fish were likely to be localised, seismic surveys may have serious consequences for the health of fisheries.

Port St Johns resident Sinegugu Zikulu said the government was not taking its consultation with local people seriously.

“Whenever the government wants to do something huge that will impact the lives of the people, they repeatedly refuse to hear the voices of those communities directly [affected]. If oil or gas is found here, that will impact the lives of this community and will benefit the shareholders of Shell,” he said.

“If there is an oil rig offshore, there are going to be oil spills and that means people who are dependent on marine resources will have no livelihood. “The government is good at cutting deals with big corporations and undermining the constitutional rights of these locals, throwing them to the dogs, cutting deals that are likely to give the government more revenue.”

He said the priority should be the livelihood of communities and marine life.

“The immediate impact will be the disturbance of the breeding of marine animals. Whales and dolphins communicate through sound and, if there is going to be blasting, that will have a negative impact and cause damage in terms of reproduction,” he said.

Zikulu said Shell was going ahead with this barely a month after COP26 – “Does the world need more emission of carbon dioxide? The answer is no.”

“On the Wild Coast, we have agriculture and tourism as investment and economic activities of choice, so by allowing the exploration of oil and gas that may lead to the pollution of our coastline and also to the detriment of the marine living resources, we are destroying the goose that lays the golden egg,” he said.

“In Pondoland, we are indigenous people. The declarations for indigenous rights are there in the UN and South Africa subscribes to those. This is impacting us directly and is taking away our right to a safe environment and self-determination,” Zikulu said.

Chris Wright, the chair of Coastwatch KwaZulu-Natal, said they were extremely concerned about the commencement of seismic surveys along the coastline.

“South Africa has just returned from COP26 in Glasgow where we have committed to significantly reducing our emissions as part of our Nationally Determined Contributions; however, it appears that not all government departments are on the same page [and are in a] rush to absolve themselves of any involvement, including Environment Minister Barbara Creecy, who has stated that she had no involvement or input with this authorisation process,” he said.

Wright said it was once again the environment that would suffer, whether from seismic surveys now or from oil and gas extraction in an area under the influence of one of the fastest flowing currents in the world.

“Our Wild Coast will be irreparably altered for short-term gains when we should be focusing on long-term goals, such as renewable energy,” he said.

Amadiba Crisis Committee’s Nonhle Mbuthuma said the high-noise blasting was a direct threat to all kinds of marine life as well as to the livelihoods of communities along the Wild Coast and KwaZulu-Natal that use the ocean to put food on the table.

“If Shell finds oil or gas, drilling the seabed threatens to bring a host of toxic substances into the water, like mercury, lead, arsenic and barium. These toxins are devastating for the health of fish and ocean wildlife and all who live on the coast,” she said.

Mbuthuma said the ocean was also part of their spiritual life.

“For over two decades, the coastal Amadiba community has fought against opencast mining on our land. Now we also must fight against the mining of the ocean.

“Indigenous people along the whole coast of Africa must have the right to say no to everything that threatens their livelihood.”

She said further expansion of the fossil fuel economy would not solve the country’s economic crisis.

“You cannot bring about economic recovery by threatening our livelihoods and the ecology of the ocean. You cannot solve one problem by creating a new problem. Put the lives of people before profits. Withdraw the licence given to Shell for preparing to mine in the ocean.”

Lizelle Maurice, the executive director of the Border Kei Chamber of Business that represents more than 500 businesses, has written an open letter to Mantashe in which she raises concerns about the survey and demands a halt to the planned seismic blasting.

She claims the engagement process that was part of the Environmental Management Programme was flawed.

“There was very limited engagement which took place and the list of parties who were contacted seem to be based outside of our region, which begs the question why members of our region … were marginalised in this process,” she said.

Concerns raised by the chamber from an environmental and economic standpoint include acoustic pollution in the ocean; a drop in commercial fishing levels; the impact on at least 55 marine species, including several endangered species of whales, 20 commercially valuable species of fish and the loggerhead turtles that will be on their annual migration at the time of the survey.

She said they had requested an immediate halt in the seismic surveying until it could be proven that there would be no negative impact on the environment and livelihoods of people in the fishing and tourism industries, among others.

She requested that the Environment Department intervene in this matter and apply the precautionary principle as reflected in the National Environmental Management Act (Nema Principles) and to insist that the survey company considers alternative technologies that are not as invasive as airguns.

“This process needs to be transparent and open to all parties. Australia and the US have stopped this type of exploration in the past because of the negative impact, so our question is why South Africa allowed this process to be approved,” asked Maurice.

Matalala Primary Fishing Cooperative member Ndumiso Kawu said Shell’s exploration was a “war directed to the communities and it’s high time for the government to listen to the poor people and save the planet”.

Port St Johns resident Zakhele Nkamisa said there would be no fish left in the ocean for them after the survey: “We were given fishing rights by the government and now they want to open mining in the same ocean where we are supposed to be fishing.”

Resident Lwandiso Gxala said: “This is wrong and it will kill our environment and businesses. As people of the Wild Coast … we need to protect [the area] against Shell, who wants to destroy it.”

Dillon Harvey, owner of the Kraal Eco Lodge at Mpande Beach in Port St Johns, said Wild Coast residents would not benefit from the gas or oil.

“This has nothing for the residents of the Wild Coast. All the survey will do is kill the fish, not to mention the damage it will have on the whales, dolphins and the reef fish. The survey is a huge loss for the residents of the Wild Coast. [No one benefits] except the government and Shell,” Harvey said.

The Wildlife and Environmental Society of SA (Wessa) said it was unreservedly opposed to 3D seismic surveys for oil and gas in South Africa’s coastal waters.

New scientific research on the impact of seismic activity on marine ecosystems points to risks “far beyond” those considered in the approval of the current seismic survey permits, Wessa said in a statement this week.

It demanded that South Africa comply with the Sustainable Development Goals, to which it is a signatory, “especially goal 14 on Life Below Water which is explicit about impacts of seismic exploration noise, and apply the precautionary principle by refusing to permit any and all seismic surveys with immediate effect in order to avoid unacceptable ecological degradation of our offshore coastal resources”. DM168

[Richprins]

We could do with more natural gas, much cleaner?

[Lisbeth]

Maybe, but it ruins the flora and fauna of the seas and shores far too much to make it reasonable. We must stop ruining the environment for our gain, when there are alternatives!

[Peter Betts]

We could do with more natural gas, much cleaner?

PLENTY at Mossel Bay

[Lisbeth]

We could do with more natural gas, much cleaner?

It is not only the use of gas, it's the way to get to the gas that ruins everything within kilometres of the coastline and the sea along it.

[Lisbeth]

Makhanda High Court to hear urgent interdict against Shell’s seismic survey


People at the Victoria & Alfred Waterfront in Cape Town protest against the arrival of the Amazon Warrior survey vessel on 21 November. (Photo: Gallo Images / Brenton Geach)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 01 Dec 2021

Four environmental and human rights organisations have filed an urgent interdict to stop Shell from carrying out its ocean seismic survey, while Eastern Cape Premier Oscar Mabuyane has supported it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

With the Amazon Warrior survey ship already in the Eastern Cape on Wednesday for a seismic survey off the Wild Coast, the Border Deep Sea Angling Association (BDSAA), Kei Mouth Ski Boat Club (KMSBC), Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa filed an urgent interim interdict in the Makhanda High Court against Shell to prevent it from beginning the survey, aimed at exploring for oil and gas.

On Monday, the environmental law firm Cullinan & Associates, representing the four environmental and human rights organisations, delivered the certificate of urgency to the Court Registrar. Acting Judge Avinash Govindjee saw the matter as urgent.

Govindjee directed the applicants to serve and file papers on 29 November, with any notice of opposition and answering affidavits to be filed by 4pm on Tuesday, 30 November.

“Replying papers and heads of arguments to be filed by 13:00 on 1 December and the rule nisi to be argued virtually at 14:00 on 1 December,” said Govindjee.

The papers filed at the Makhanda High Court were served on Shell’s attorneys electronically on Monday.

According to Natural Justice’s statement, the applicants intend putting expert evidence before the court to expose how irrational and socially unjust it is for Shell to continue looking for more oil and gas reserves when the reserves already discovered cannot be used without promoting catastrophic climate change, especially in light of a Dutch court ruling ordering Shell to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 47% within this decade.

In a founding affidavit by Tyrone Gower, president of BDSAA, the group argued that the commencement of the seismic exploration activities is prima facie unlawful until Shell has applied for, and obtained, the necessary environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Nema).

“The decision-making process amounts to unjust administrative action since interested and affected parties were not informed of the granting of the exploration right or given an opportunity to appeal it. The public were also not notified of the two applications to renew the exploration right (ER).

“Shell and Impact Africa should not be permitted to carry out operations under the ER and its renewals before the periods for appeal have passed and any appeals have been determined. That cannot occur less than 30 days after the prescribed notice is given. Failure to give notice is a sufficient basis for setting aside the impugned administrative acts,” read the affidavit.


Environmental activists protest against Shell on 26 November 2021 outside the Petroleum Agency of South Africa in Cape Town. Environmentalists across the country are outraged over Shell’s planned survey off South Africa’s pristine Wild Coast. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Nic Bothma)

The affidavit states the explosions or discharges of the planned seismic survey are sufficiently strong to cause major disruption or damage to a large range of animals, including various fish species, marine mammals such as whales and dolphins, turtles, crustaceans and other creatures.

“They are also expected to kill the eggs of fish and squid that are carried southwards by the Mozambique Current through the intended survey area. The surveys are also proposed to be undertaken in extremely close proximity to several Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) formally declared under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003, and overlap with the Protea Banks and Sardine Route Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas,” read the affidavit.

According to the affidavit, the survey area is in proximity to several Critical Biodiversity Areas.

“Shell and Impact Africa claim to be entitled to undertake the survey on the basis of the ER. We contend that the ER was awarded unlawfully in breach of, inter alia, the fundamental constitutionally guaranteed rights of BDSAA and KMSBC and the public in general. The ER was renewed twice and both renewals were unlawful and invalid,” read the affidavit.

“Shell is now required to obtain… an environmental authorisation before it may lawfully commence exploration activities.”

The affidavit states that it is clear that Shell and Impact Africa are determined to carry out the survey operations regardless.

The affidavit stated that the applicants have been left with no means of preventing the survey from being undertaken from 1 December other than bringing the urgent application.

Pooven Moodley, executive director at Natural Justice, said the planned survey “undermines our government’s obligation under the Paris Climate Agreement to mitigate the climate crisis for people now, and for future generations, and contradicts the commitments made at the recent COP26 in Glasgow to lower emissions and advance a just transition”.

Happy Khambule, senior climate and energy campaign manager for Greenpeace Africa, said the planned survey threatened to destroy the Wild Coast and the lives of the people living there.

“We know that Shell is a climate criminal, destroying people’s lives and the planet for profit. South Africa’s problems do not require violent extraction nor destruction of the environment and community livelihoods. The best and most immediate solution is a just transition to renewable energy, ensuring safe and decent/work jobs, and energy access for all,” said Khambule.

However, Eastern Cape Premier Oscar Mabuyane said on Tuesday the provincial government had not yet seen any problem with the planned seismic survey.

“It is still at its early stage. It is still just a mere exploration. It may be a seismic exploration, but remains an exploration and we believe that it must be done in a context of sustainable development. We want to support what Shell is trying to initiate there as the province,” he said.

“We can’t remain where we are forever. Along that coastline there are people who are so poor, and those who pretend as if they represent their interests know it.”

He said Shell had been given a permit and that a process had been followed.

“Let’s monitor it, let’s make sure that it complies fully with environmental management standards.” DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

Shell argues a successful interdict will be detrimental to it and the country, claims no evidence of environmental harm


Kei Mouth Village on the Wild Coast. (Photo: Supplied)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 02 Dec 2021

Lawyers argue in the hope of preventing Shell from conducting a seismic survey off the Wild Coast to explore for oil and gas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Makhanda High Court on Wednesday, advocate Willie Duminy, representing the Border Deep Sea Angling Association, Kei Mouth Ski Boat Club, Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa, argued that the approved Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the seismic survey makes it clear that the survey should not be undertaken during December unless that cannot be avoided, and that Shell had not established that conducting it now was unavoidable.

Duminy was arguing during the heads of argument in the urgent interim interdict hearing between the four environmental and human rights groups and the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, Shell and Impact Africa.

Duminy argued that the necessary mitigation measures had not been taken — in particular, many fishing organisations were not informed of the survey as the EMPr required, and there was no evidence of any attempt to identify and inform potential interested and affected parties.

Duminy said the applicants had demonstrated a strong case for review.

“They have also demonstrated the prospect of substantial harm to the receiving environment, based on statements derived from the EMPr itself. The harm to the receiving environment does not seem to be capable of being repaired and cannot be addressed by any subsequent remedy. Shell’s answer is that the applicants exaggerate the environmental impacts, not that they are repairable,” he said.

Duminy submitted that it was not only the prejudice to the applicants personally that should be weighed, but also the prejudice to the interest of protecting the environment that they represented.

“The likely harm to the environment and the concomitant interests of the applicants has been established,” he said.

He submitted that the only way of affording the applicants any redress in respect of the proposed seismic survey in December was to treat this application as urgent.

The potential for seismic surveys to cause irreparable harm to the Wild Coast’s marine environment during December (and particularly to migrating humpback whales and other cetaceans), was the central issue in the (virtual) hearing before Acting Judge Avinash Govindjee on Wednesday afternoon.

The Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy’s legal representative, advocate Albert Beyleveld, and Shell’s legal representative, advocate Adrian Friedman, argued that the applicants had neither proved that the seismic survey would cause significant harm nor that the harm would be irreparable.

Friedman said if an interim interdict were granted stopping Shell from starting the survey in December, it would not be able to complete the survey within the window of suitable time within 2022.

“Shell may then have to walk away from the project and that would be detrimental to Shell and to the country. The applicants had deliberately brought the case on a hyper-urgent basis in order to gain an unfair advantage and obtain an interim interdict that would achieve the ulterior objective of effectively stopping the project,” he said.

Beyleveld said the applicants became aware of the survey on 29 October and had a month where they did nothing to halt it.

“There is no catastrophe and the application should be struck off the roll,” he said.

Friedman said seismic surveys had been conducted around the world for more than 50 years and had been the subject of extensive peer-reviewed scientific research for 15 years.

“In all of this time, and with all of this research, there has been no evidence of any significant impact on marine populations. Even more importantly, there have been at least 35 3D seismic surveys [ie, of the same type at issue in this application] conducted in South Africa, 11 of which have been conducted in the last five years. There is no evidence that any of these has caused any serious injury, death or stranding of marine life. In 2020, 325 seismic surveys have been conducted globally without any reports of death or irreversible harm to marine life,” he said.

Friedman said the question was: “What is the urgency in the current attempt to stop this seismic survey, which did not apply to all of the others?

“None has been suggested because there is none. The applicants have been unable to demonstrate that Shell’s detailed mitigation strategy is in any way inadequate. On the applicants’ own version, they have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Shell’s mitigation mechanisms will be deficient.

“The high watermark of their case is that they may, in the future, be able to acquire expert evidence which may establish that the mitigation mechanisms are inadequate,” said Friedman.

He said the applicants had tried to suggest that there was some prima facie irregularity with the seismic survey being conducted in December. But Shell had demonstrated in detail that, in fact, commencing now was the most appropriate step to take, from an environmental perspective, to prevent interference with whales during July to November.

“In other words, the window now selected, with the mitigation measures adopted, is the safest window in which to conduct the survey. In particular, the EMPr makes clear that the survey may be conducted in December, as long as passive acoustic monitoring is in place in December. Shell has demonstrated that it will, in fact, use passive acoustic monitoring for the duration of the survey,” Friedman said.

“The vessel is already on its way to the location and the granting of an interim interdict now will cause irreparable harm to Shell and its partners arising from the wasted expenditure and planning.

“Delay now will be likely to cause Shell to terminate its interest in the licence because it would have lost the opportunity to acquire the data which it needs to decide whether to enter the next renewal phase,” he said.

Shell had spent millions of dollars and entered into contractual obligations to be ready to commence the survey.

“This will sink if the interim interdict is granted,” Friedman said.

He said that if it were not dismissed for failure to show prejudice, the case should be struck from the roll because any urgency had been self-created.

Duminy, however, said the law regulated seismic surveys and required mitigation measures to be taken, precisely because they were harmful to the environment.

“Shell’s own EMPr establishes that harm will occur and the interdict should not be refused on the basis that the degree of harm was insufficient. Shell was not taking all the mitigation measures required by law and it would be argued at the review stage that Shell does not have the environmental authorisation that it requires under the National Environmental Management Act,” he said.

He pointed out that the applicants were motivated by a desire to protect the coastal environment, and had to make an urgent application because Shell was unwilling to give any undertakings that it would not commence the survey during December in order to reduce the risks to cetaceans.

Govindjee reserved judgment and indicated that he would deliver it at 9am on Friday. DM/OBP