OFFSHORE EXPLORATION

[Lisbeth]

I am not too sure about that that it is clean.... In any case, the means of getting at it is not "clean" nor green

[Lisbeth]

Explainer: Cleaner but not clean - Why scientists say natural gas won't avert climate disaster

By Valerie Volcovici, Kate Abnett, Matthew Green

(Reuters) - Natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide (C02) when burned than coal, but that doesn’t make it harmless. Climate scientists say that rising production of natural gas is emerging as one of the biggest drivers of climate change, and that plans for industry expansion could hobble efforts to stabilize the Earth’s climate. The U.S. energy industry plans to invest hundreds of billions of dollars building pipelines and terminals in coming years to ramp up exports of natural gas in supercooled liquefied form, known as LNG.

In January 2020, the American Petroleum Institute (API), a powerful lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, launched its “Energy for Progress” advertising campaign. The campaign has described natural gas as a “clean” or “environmentally friendly” energy source that has lowered CO2 emissions in the United States. [nL8N2F40CW] It also says that increasing global exports of U.S. gas “offers a solution to help lower the world’s carbon footprint.”

Reuters ran these claims by a dozen scientists and energy experts, and also sought their responses to other questions about the effects of natural gas on climate change.

ISN’T NATURAL GAS BETTER FOR THE CLIMATE THAN COAL?

Burning natural gas produces about half as much CO2 as coal to produce the same amount of energy. It also produces far fewer pollutants that can harm human health.

In the United States, natural gas from the country’s fracking industry has helped drive a dramatic reduction in the use of coal to generate electricity. Overall, U.S. CO2 emissions have fallen 15% from their 2007 peak, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Not all of that reduction can be attributed to natural gas; also contributing were such factors as increased energy efficiency and the growing use of renewables.

ISN’T SOME IMPROVEMENT OVER COAL BETTER THAN NOTHING?

Yes, but to limit the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5C - the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement - scientists say emissions must be reduced to net zero by 2050, which leaves far less room for use of fossil fuels of any kind.

Emissions globally need to fall by about 7.6% a year between now and 2030 to meet the 1.5C target, according to the U.N. Environment Programme.[nL4N2862JR] Last year, U.S. emissions fell by about 2.9%, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency.

But emissions from the natural gas industry, particularly in the United States, are now growing so rapidly that the sector “is quickly becoming one of the biggest, if not the biggest, challenges to address climate change,” said Pep Canadell, a senior research scientist at CSIRO Climate Science Centre in Canberra, Australia.

In November, a U.N.-backed team of researchers found that the world was on track to produce 70% more natural gas in 2030 than would be compatible with the 1.5C goal.[nL8N27Y2AL]

“Most of the new gas production isn’t supplanting coal - it’s supplementing it. It’s answering demand for new energy,” said Rob Jackson, a professor at Stanford University who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks greenhouse gas emissions.[nL1N2BP17V]

WHAT IS THE DANGER OF METHANE IN NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION?

Climate scientists are concerned about another greenhouse gas that leaks into the atmosphere during natural gas production: methane. Methane has a warming effect up to 80 or 90 times more powerful than C02 over a 20-year timescale. [nL2N2EL21I]

In April, a study published in the journal Science Advances found that the amount of methane being released in the natural gas and oil-rich Permian basin between New Mexico and Texas was double federal estimates. Two further studies, published in July, highlighted the role of the U.S. oil and gas industry in driving a rise in global methane emissions to the highest levels on record.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week rolled back regulations to curb methane emissions in the oil and gas industry - a move supported by API.[nL1N2FF260]

Many companies say they have been doing more to find and fix methane leaks. API’s website points to industry initiatives and innovations to “capture as much methane as possible.”

WHAT ABOUT GAS AS A TEMPORARY “BRIDGE FUEL” TO A CLEANER FUTURE?

The industry often portrays natural gas as a vital “bridge” to help utilities shift from a reliance on coal-fired power to cleaner sources of energy.

Advocates of natural gas argue that gas-fired power plants can provide continuous electricity, backing up wind and solar operations that run more intermittently. Until batteries or other forms of energy storage become cheaper and more accessible, natural gas should serve as a complement to renewables, they say.

Climate scientists are increasingly concerned, however, that plans to massively expand the industry mean that using natural gas as a “bridge” could end up locking the world into a high-carbon and fast-warming future.

In a report published in June last year, Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based non-profit that analyses the fossil fuel industry, estimated that the oil and gas industry plans to spend $1.3 trillion to build a global infrastructure to boost the trade in liquefied natural gas, with most of these investments planned in North America. Were they all to go ahead, the climate impact of the projects - including the effects of methane leaks - would exceed that of all coal-fired power plants under construction or in pre-construction planning worldwide, the report said.

COULD TECHNOLOGY MITIGATE THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF NATURAL GAS?

In theory, yes. Carbon can be captured and stored underground through a process known as carbon capture and storage (CCS). The oil and gas industry has stressed the potential benefits of CCS technology in tackling emissions.

But the progress of that approach has been slow. Corinne Le Quere, a leading climate scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia, told Reuters that “the industry and governments repeatedly fail to invest substantially in this technology, with the practical result that gas emissions continue to go straight to the atmosphere.”

Valerie Volcovici reported from Washington, D.C., Kate Abnett from Brussels and Matthew Green from London. Additional reporting by Andrew R.C. Marshall in London. Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Julie Marquis

[Richprins]

Much better than coal. We simply can't do enough renewables here for our baseload, end of story. Best is nuclear but that takes a decade and is expensive.

[Lisbeth]

Nobody will arrive, especially China and India, which are the super polluters.

[Lisbeth]

From a Swiss local newspaper:

South Africa stops Shell in "whale paradise"

A high court in the country has blocked the oil giant: it will not be able to conduct seismic tests off the pristine Wild Coast.



Before the High Court they highlighted how Shell did not properly consult the communities that would most suffer the consequences of the tests and explorations. They also presented overwhelming evidence in court about the threat that Shell posed to the marine ecosystem.

Among the criticisms leveled at the giant is also that of having obtained the initial green light for explorations thanks to the use of rules that have now disappeared. The initial green light was in fact received in 2014 a few months before new environmental protection laws came into force.

It is a "significant" victory because it shows how "no matter how big a company is, those who ignore local communities do so at their own peril", says one of the winning lawyers, observing how the case has strongly highlighted the difficulties of the local communities to claim their rights on the territory. "Their voices - he adds - have been heard and their constitutional rights respected".

https://www.cdt.ch/mondo/il-sudafrica-f ... -KC5026279

[Peter Betts]

Shell and their SA Govt Supporters will just throw Money at it and get the Constitution Court to over throw this decision >>

[Lisbeth]

Seismic survey: South Africa’s top science academy calls for rethink on outdated sea-blasting technology


Ocean activist and professional athlete Flo Jung from Germany wing foils in protest against oil giant Shell and the Shearwater seismic vessel Amazon Warrior as it arrives in Cape Town on 21 November 2021. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Nic Bothma)

By Tony Carnie | 10 Jan 2022

Eleven top scientists representing the Academy of Sciences of South Africa have weighed in strongly against the Shell seismic survey — and any further marine seismic surveys off the SA coastline — until there are more rigorous expert studies in local waters. They have also cautioned that the loud and outdated air gun technologies used in such surveys date back at least 50 years and were likely to cause ‘real harm to marine life’.
...........................................................................................................................................................
The academy’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) has urged the government to swiftly reform marine protection legislation by revoking the exclusive power of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) to issue oil and gas exploration permits.

The advisory group’s sub-committee on marine ecology and risk mitigation said the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE), the SA National Biodiversity Institute and conservation agencies should also have a strong voice on whether to authorise surveys such as the controversial recent Shell/Impact Oil survey along the Wild Coast.

“Decisions that concern the marine environment cannot and should not be made by a single government department, as the complex and integrated nature of marine systems demand more integrative decision-making processes amongst all stakeholders.”

The full advisory statement and list of authors can be accessed here.

Significantly, the scientists have endorsed the position taken by several environmental groups that Shell should not be permitted to embark on the survey until there is a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that examines the specific impacts for South African waters.

The more rudimentary Environmental Management Programme (EMP) relied upon by Shell/Impact was also insufficient to properly assess harmful impacts.

“No seismic survey should be conducted in South African waters without a preceding comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment report based on the latest science. EMPs should never be considered a valid and legitimate substitute for comprehensive EIA reports,” according to the multidisciplinary group of 11 experts — Aliza le Roux, Jerome Amir Singh, Isabelle Ansorge, Marizvikuru Manjoro, Tommy Bornman, Simon Elwen, Louise Gammage, Sershen Naidoo, Anusha Rajkaran, Patrick Vrancken and Pradeep Kumar.

They noted that populations of the extremely rare coelacanth “dinosaur fish” could still foreseeably inhabit this section of the South African coast, while a survey from last year confirmed that there is a high number of endemic and endangered fish species across the continental shelf, such as deep-water lace corals, wreckfish and critically endangered and endemic seabreams.

The survey technology proposed by Shell was also out of date and there was a real risk of irreparable harm to the marine environment.

Due to a relative dearth of evidence on the impact of seismic surveys on marine life in South African waters, “SAGE takes the following position: There is a reasonable apprehension of real harm to marine life if (Shell/Impact) are permitted to resume their seismic survey”.

They note that blasting compressed air into the sea constituted outdated technology that had not changed significantly after nearly 50 years of use. Newer technologies with less environmental impact have since been developed, including Wide Azimuth data acquisition and Marine Vibroseis.

“Several companies have operated under similar permits off South Africa’s coastline, with offshore oil and gas exploration continuing since the 1960s. These companies are operating under the assumption that their operations will have minimal impact on marine biota. These assumptions are based on, amongst others:

• a lack of sufficient, detailed scientific information on South Africa’s offshore marine resources (both biotic and abiotic), and

• a flawed legal distinction between substance-based pollutants and energy-based pollutants, such as sound.

“Shell’s planned seismic operations, similar to past and ongoing explorations along our coastline, use seismic airguns to probe for the presence of shale gas deposits. These airgun arrays are considered ‘disruptive technologies’ which can cause acoustic disturbance over 3,000km from the survey vessels (Nieukerk et al. 2004).

“This stream of energy is significant in an aquatic environment where sound waves travel much further than in air, and where most wildlife relies on acoustic communication throughout their life cycles. It, therefore, constitutes noise pollution and a threat to marine life behavioural patterns and/or survival.”

They note that seismic surveys have been implicated in altering the behaviour of whales and dolphins attempting to escape airgun surveys. Several other disruptions to marine biota had also been documented, including altering penguin behaviour off Gqeberha (Pichegru et al. 2017) and decimating larval krill populations (McCauley et al. 2017), which are key prey for species such as humpback whales.

In controlled experiments, negative impacts on zooplankton have been documented more than 1km from the sound source; a significantly wider reach than Shell’s predicted 10m impact range.

“Despite such potentially harmful consequences, no formal research on the effects of seismic surveys have been conducted in South Africa and the exact effects on the marine environment — and by default, the people who depend on marine resources — remain largely unknown.”

Consultants and other people with land-based mining and generalised environmental impact experience should also never be considered proxies for legitimate marine experts. Instead, EIA reports for marine environments (or for that matter, even EMPs for marine environments) should be drafted by experts with professional marine science and/or marine environmental training and experience.


Ocean activists protest against oil giant Shell and the Shearwater seismic vessel Amazon Warrior as it arrives in Cape Town, South Africa, 21 November 2021. Protests occurred on land and at sea in various parts of South Africa against the proposed seismic blasting by Shell. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Nic Bothma)

“There is a real threat that marine life would be irreparably harmed if (Shell/ImpactOil) are permitted to resume their seismic survey.”

Accordingly, when the Makhanda High Court considered Part B of the application, the court should grant the relief sought by the civil society applicants: the respondents should be interdicted from proceeding with the seismic survey until and unless they obtain an environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act.

“We urge the South African government to convene a task team to evaluate and improve our current domestic legislation. More specifically, the authority of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to exclusively issue exploration permits without the concurrence of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, should be revoked.

“Only a holistic approach to marine oversight will ensure the sustainable use of our natural resources while also encouraging and supporting tourism, local livelihoods, environmental health and the maintenance of ecosystem services.”

The group said decisions that concern the marine environment cannot and should not be made by a single government department, as the complex and integrated nature of marine systems demand more integrative decision-making processes among all stakeholders.

Interdepartmental cooperation and considerations need to be mandated, bringing together the DFFE, DMRE, their affiliated entities, for example the South African National Biodiversity Institute and conservation agencies.

The process of EIAs should be revised to ensure a more proactive, systems-based approach, including direct and indirect stakeholders. Such an approach to EIAs was necessary given the unique, integrated nature of the marine ecosystem, which included a multitude of temporal and spatial scales.

The experts have further recommended that:

• No seismic survey should be conducted in South African waters without a preceding comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment report based on the latest science. EMPs should never be considered a valid and legitimate substitute for comprehensive EIA reports.

• The government should convene a task team to evaluate and improve current domestic legislation. More specifically, the authority of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to exclusively issue exploration permits without the concurrence of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, should be revoked.

SAGE is housed within the Academy of Sciences of South Africa, the official national science academy. It aims to provide rapid, independent, multidisciplinary science advice to stakeholders on emergency issues that require strategic attention and to create awareness in relation to emergencies.

In the context of SAGE activities, an “emergency” denotes a serious, unexpected and potentially dangerous situation that has either already caused loss of life, health detriments, property damage or environmental damage, or has a high probability of escalating to cause immediate danger to life, health, property or the environment. DM/OBP

[Richprins]

I think Shell will be back...

[Lisbeth]

Fishers and civic organisations take legal action against West Coast seismic surveying

By Onke Ngcuka | 21 Jan 2022

Last month, Shell was ordered to halt its seismic survey programme on the Wild Coast. Now, another case involving an Australian exploration company is due to be heard in court as communities along the coast fight for their livelihoods.

The Shell case was said to set a precedent for future exploration and extractivism cases. It seems, however, that the inevitable has come sooner than expected as a group representing various civic organisations has filed an urgent interdict against Australian geoscience company Searcher Geodata, which has been conducting a seismic survey programme along South Africa’s West Coast.

The applicants had written to Searcher Geodata, pleading with the company to put an end to its project currently under way. But the lack of response from the company has prompted the organisations to take the matter to court, in the hope that the law will put an end to the potential environmental harm posed to the lives of coastal communities by seismic surveying.

Wilmien Wilcomb, an attorney representing 13 of the 14 applicants, told Daily Maverick, “The communities say that the survey will not only cause irreparable harm to the ocean and birdlife on the West Coast, but stand to further erode their rights to fish for their livelihoods and as an expression of their identity.”

Other respondents in the case include Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe; Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy; Petroleum Agency South Africa; and BGP Pioneer, the Panama-registered seismic research ship.

Gilbert Martin, founder of We are South Africans (the 14th applicant), told Daily Maverick that they are hoping that an interdict will stop not only Searcher Geodata’s seismic survey, but also all other mining or seismic activities through a public oversight committee to oversee improperly conducted processes.

He said they were filing the interdict based on the fact that the research to formulate the environmental management programme (EMPr) was outdated, that there was no meaningful public participation, and that the survey will damage the environment, tourism and fishing industries.

Daily Maverick previously reported that the Coastal Justice Network has raised the fact that small-scale fishing communities along the West Coast had not been consulted during assessments to grant Searcher Geodata permits to conduct the surveys.

Christian Adams, the first applicant, said in his affidavit that he wanted Mantashe and Creecy to comprehend what is happening to the fishing community and what the issuing of permits has done to the industry, without its input.

Searcher Geodata told Daily Maverick in an email that the company had completed a comprehensive Environmental Management Plan, fulfilling the requirements of a Basic Assessment Report as per the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations. The company said that the assessment had been developed with broad consultation from local communities in order to protect the environment.

“Community awareness and consultation have been exhaustive and in full compliance with Pasa [Petroleum Agency SA] requirements,” the company said. “Searcher wishes to note that we have a history of effectively conducting marine seismic surveys internationally with successful environmental outcomes. This is achieved by rigorous environmental risk assessment combined with robust operating principles, planning and management.”

Pasa granted Searcher Geodata its permit in early November 2021. The permit grants Searcher a reconnaissance permit for petroleum, which allows it to conduct the seismic surveys across various blocks offshore, the Orange Basin off the West Coast, and in the south coast of the Western and Northern Cape provinces of the country.

The permit granted to Searcher by the DMRE showed that it has been effective since 6 December 2021 on the basis of environmental approvals that assess the potential impacts on marine fauna and flora.

This, according to the permit, included some of the ways in which the company can identify measures to mitigate potential impacts, including a 30-day public review and comment period.

“Where will we end up? Are we going to be murals for people to look at and to say there was once a thriving small-scale fishing sector, but due to the OEMP, due to the Marine Spatial Planning Bill, due to Operation Phakisa, it no longer exists?” Adams said.

Wicomb will be representing the 13 parties, while Richard Spoor Attorneys will represent We are South Africans when the case is heard in the Western Cape High Court. DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

‘Kuzophela konke’ – Why we say no to HCI, Total, Shell and to government’s gas plan


Amadiba elder, Samson Gampe. (Photo: Max Bastard)

By Sinegugu Zukulu, Margie Pretorius, Andrew Bennie and Nobuntu Mazeka | 27.01.2022

The greenhouse gas emissions of SA exports will continue to place us in danger of Western climate sanctions if we try to switch from coal to methane gas. And that means the Hosken Consolidated Investment (HCI) oil and gas subsidiary, Impact, and its allies Shell and Total, will be sabotaging the rest of the economy.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Imali iyaphela, umhlaba awupheli” — money gets finished, the land does not, is how Amadiba elder, uTata Samson Gampe summed up his opposition to coastal dune mining in Xolobeni on the Wild Coast.

We think he would say the same thing in response to the government’s proposed Gas Master Plan which aims to enable oil and gas extraction from land and sea and pipe it across the country to burn to produce electricity. If South Africa pursues methane gas, as indicated in last month’s press release by Minister Gwede Mantashe, we will be pursuing a path to irreparable environmental damage and irreversible climate change, as well as the demise of coastline communities and livelihoods.

To paraphrase uTata Gampe’s idiom, if we pursue the Gas Master Plan and the economic growth it will enable, “kuzophela konke” — everything will be finished. As others have put it, “there are no jobs on a dead planet”.

The South African government’s Gas Master Plan promotes gas as a responsible transition fuel that will enable South Africa to transition away from coal. However, when fugitive emissions of methane-rich gas — the gas that escapes the pipes during extraction and transportation — are taken into account, they negate the claim that liquefied natural gas is an environmentally friendly or even “transitional” fossil fuel, given that it consists 90% of methane.

Over the first two decades after its release, scientists agree, methane gas is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of warming the climate system. In the first 100 years after methane is emitted, it is still 25 times more potent than CO2.

Gas is neither clean nor green and if South Africa pursues the Gas Master Plan, it cannot meet its carbon emission reduction commitments. The greenhouse gas emissions of SA exports will continue to place us in danger of Western climate sanctions if we try to switch from coal to methane gas. And that means the Hosken Consolidated Investment (HCI) oil and gas subsidiary, Impact, and its allies Shell and Total, will be sabotaging the rest of the economy.

HCI must also listen to the International Energy Agency in their May 2021 report on the pathway to cutting carbon emissions by the amounts needed to avoid full-fledged catastrophe: “No new natural gas fields are needed beyond those already under development. Also not needed are many of the LNG liquefaction facilities currently under construction or at the planning stage.”

Pursuing the Gas Master Plan will waste significant state resources in building expensive infrastructure that will likely become stranded assets. It will sink resources that we need for a just transition away from fossil fuels, and it will lock South Africa into using fossil fuel gas when the rest of the world is moving towards reliance on renewables. Sanctions will surely follow; the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will kick in next January and start imposing prohibitive costs on many South African exports within a few years.

These inconvenient truths about gas, climate change, carbon taxes and stranded assets are not mentioned by the board of HCI — led by Johnny Copelyn — when attempting to persuade us that their gas exploration and extraction plans are honourable, sensible, unavoidable and in the best interests of South Africa.

The residents of Amadiba and other rural areas are already beginning to experience climate crisis. Agriculture is becoming more challenging as unpredictable weather patterns and more extreme weather events such as more droughts and heavier downpours of rain keep increasing. Livestock are sick more often. If HCI board members really consider our arguments against seismic testing as “emotional”, or “unfounded” they must sit with Wild Coast residents and discuss the climate implications of more oil and gas extraction on their lives and livelihoods.

HCI states that the current protests are fundamentally about extraction — not the lack of consultation with coastal communities or about seismic testing. It is unhelpful to separate these processes as they are all part of the same plan. Separately and together they are deeply problematic and we object to them all.

Another wise elder of Amadiba — uTata Bhalasheleni Mthwa — refused to allow Australian mining company MRC to even test the red sands of the Xolobeni Red Dunes adjacent to his homestead because testing the sand was likely to lead to mining them for heavy minerals. In his words: “ayiothyolwa ingavumanga” — you do not pay lobola for the lady who has not agreed to marry you.

In other words, don’t ask to come and test our red sands for minerals when we have not agreed to you mining here. Paying lobola and getting married go together, just like exploration and extraction.

The Amadiba community, led by the Amadiba Crisis Committee, has shown that resisting exploration is vital to resisting extraction. It said no to exploration of their Xolobeni Red Dunes because they didn’t want extraction to destroy their ancestral lands. Today they are still planting, harvesting, eating and selling their sweet potatoes on the land that MRC wants to mine, and growing ecotourism in order to host visitors from across the world.

The Amadiba know, and the research supports their views, that mining will not bring more benefits to those living in Amadiba than other options such as supporting local tourism, agriculture and ecological protection for future generations.

The HCI board claims that the fears of seismic survey damage to the ocean and the livelihoods of those who depend on the ocean are “unfounded”. It is difficult for us to understand this statement given that the Makhanda High Court judgment of 28 December affirmed that there is strong scientific evidence that seismic testing can cause irreparable harm to ocean life. Also, in early January 11 top scientists representing the Academy of Sciences of South Africa spoke out strongly about the dangers of seismic surveys, cautioning that the loud and outdated air gun technologies used in such surveys date back at least 50 years and were likely to cause “real harm to marine life”.

Fishermen on the Wild Coast are extremely concerned about the damage that seismic blasting and oil and gas extraction will do to their livelihoods. They have depended on the ocean for survival for all their lives.

In the words of Port St Johns fisherman, Ntsindiso Nongcavu, “seismic testing will impact our fish and other marine life and will affect the ecosystems they need to flourish. Continuing to exploit our oceans will increase our carbon emissions (thereby exacerbating climate change) and take our country into extreme poverty and hunger. All the while, only a few will enjoy the wealth. We want wellbeing for all — not wealth for a few!”

Instead of claiming that environmentalists are “peddling fears of catastrophic damage to the coastline and its inhabitants”, the HCI Board must leave the luxury of their boardroom and engage with the concerns of fishermen like Mr Nongcavu and the many fishing communities along the entire coastline of South Africa.

The extraction of oil and gas is a highly risky process that has already caused great damage through oil spills and blowouts in many parts of the world. Consider what such an event would mean for the Wild Coast, as the powerful Agulhas Current quickly washes everything in its path up and down the coast. To illustrate, plastic nurdles spilt in an October 2017 superstorm in the Durban harbour were found on beaches along the east coast from Kosi Bay in the north to Scarborough in the south.

The Gas Master Plan does not include plans for, or take into account, the costs of oil and gas spills. With some gas deposits 4km deep below the surface in what is the second most turbulent current in the world, HCI, Total and Shell are playing a dangerous game. The massive negative economic impacts on South Africa’s coastline and fishing and tourism industry of an oil spill or gas leak would be even more devastating than Covid-19. This week, 6,000 barrels of oil polluted approximately 18,000 square metres of beach in Peru, when waves caused by the Tonga volcanic eruption — all the way across the Pacific Ocean — caused a spill as an Italian ship was being loaded. Six months ago, off the Mexican coast, the ocean literally burned as a result of an underwater offshore gas leak.


The PASA map shows how the ocean off the entire coast of South Africa has been parcelled out and allocated to various foreign companies seeking to explore for and extract oil and/or gas.

The Gas Master Plan for South Africa is not a responsible plan. It is a hasty effort to enable foreign companies and the South African government to make money in the short term and in the process, damage our Earth and ocean and destroy our future.

If we look to Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, we can see that gas extraction does not improve the lives of local people; instead, it causes displacement, environmental degradation, social unrest and violence. The war in Cabo Delgado — that South Africa is supporting mainly on behalf of the Paris-based Total oil company — is not caused by religious insurgency. It is caused by the rage and chaos that is triggered when people witness foreigners making money out of their dispossession. Part of that crisis hit local residents hard in April 2019: Cyclone Kenneth’s 225km/h winds which tore down nearly every structure, and which were the result of warming Mozambique Current water, were caused by climate change.

The HCI board acknowledges that the Mozambican oil supply is politically unstable — “much of the route is politically unstable and is likely to be regularly disrupted” — in order to make the case for their own gas prospecting. But they fail to interrogate the reasons for this instability or acknowledge that similar instability might affect future gas projects and infrastructure in South Africa. Transnet regularly reports hundreds of break-ins to their own petroleum pipelines.

Sadly, our government leaders seem ignorant of or deliberately dismissive of the negative impacts of resource extraction on the environment and people. During colonial and apartheid times, the rights of people who inconveniently got in the way of mining operations, or even big conservation projects were simply disregarded. Has nothing changed?


A family, extended and direct, harvest a crop of sweet potatoes in Sigidi Village on the Wild Coast.( Photo: Supplied)

The Gas Master Plan is being presented as urgent, so as to supply energy and create jobs. But not only is gas infrastructure not a responsible investment, we know there are millions of jobs to be created through a genuine Just Transition to a decarbonised future.

The challenges in this transition are huge, but our energy crisis can become an opportunity to harness the creative resources and for our many remarkable scientists and entrepreneurs to develop an energy plan that creates good jobs, and does not destroy our Earth life support systems.

We do not want to witness South Africa becoming uninhabitable because of climate change and the terrible disruptions that will accompany catastrophic global warming, as are already being felt in many parts of the world.

We are living in a time of great change and many new innovative advances in energy provision are very likely in the near future. This requires that we practice caution in committing to costly, risky and outright dangerous fossil fuel megaprojects such as the Gas Master Plan, when there are possible alternatives that need more attention.

HCI suggests that “aspiring to be the only country in the world that sits on valuable resources it needs, but refuses to develop, is a luxury we simply cannot afford”.

Actually, that logic is exactly what André de Ruyter persuaded Western financiers to accept: leaving Mpumalanga’s coal underground deserves concessional finance. We would like to call that an initial down-payment on the West’s climate debt to the world. And this logic must apply just as much to methane gas offshore Cabo Delgado, the Wild Coast and the Atlantic Coast.

We believe the West has overconsumed — as have South Africa’s elites — and has too great and unjust a carbon footprint. They need to consider what is termed “degrowth” and the need for countries that have suffered the impacts of climate change to be paid to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

One way to make this case is a full cost accounting of the climate damage — measured now at R45,000/ton of CO2-equivalent emissions — that HCI’s gas extraction is likely to do.

The latest research on climate damage suggests to us that HCI’s gross revenues will be outstripped by more than 30-fold in terms of the resulting climate costs to us and future generations. They will be making money, and we, the people of South Africa and the rest of planet Earth will be the losers for generations to come.


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

The measurement of carbon in the atmosphere needs to become more important to us in charting our future than measurement of profits or GDP, which simply externalise or ignore pollution. And this measurement must be a primary factor in determining whether we say yes or no to further fossil fuel extraction.

Contemporary African philosopher Bayo Akomolafe says, “we live in urgent times, slow down”.

So we also now ask our government leaders to slow down and seek a future energy plan that is grounded in sound research, courage and the wisdom of elders like uTata Gampe who knew that if we destroy the Earth and the ocean we destroy ourselves and the future of our children. Otherwise, ngempela, kuzophela konke.

The deadline for submitting public comments to the Gas Master Plan is 31 January 2022. OBP/DM

The writers are members of Sustaining the Wild Coast (www.swc.org.za) which works to support the growth of agroecology and ecotourism in the Amadiba area of The Wild Coast.