OFFSHORE EXPLORATION

[Lisbeth]

Oceans Not Oil calls for appeals against Northern Cape seismic survey authorisation



Hundreds of people gathered in Muizenberg, Cape Town to protest against a 3D seismic survey commissioned By Shell along the East Coast on 5 December 2021. (Photo: Gallo Images / Brenton Geach)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 23 Mar 2022

Oceans Not Oil, a South African organisation fighting offshore oil and gas exploration, has called on NGOs to submit their appeals after the authorisation of a proposed seismic exploration by Tosaco Energy in the Northern Cape.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
With the whole of South Africa’s offshore divided into blocks as exploration rights are granted to big oil companies, NGOs are fighting tooth and nail to stop these surveys from going ahead, while they have been granted interim interdicts against Shell on the Wild Coast and Searcher Geodata on the West Coast.

On 6 April 2022, Oceans Not Oil (ONO) will appeal against the environmental authorisation for both 2D and 3D offshore seismic activity in Block 1, located offshore extending from Alexander Bay to around Hondeklip Bay in the Northern Cape.

ONO co-founder Janet Solomon says the authorisation makes no sense in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas emission reduction timeframes.

“It risks Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas and local fisheries. ONO will be submitting its appeal by 6 April, considering the 20 days from emailing notification on 17 March 2022. Appeals need to be submitted by 23 March 2022,” she said.

Solomon said the environmental authorisation was granted on 7 March 2022 by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.

“Our appeal will go through the appeal process. It will be good if many and robust appeals are submitted. Then Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy will authorise and then we will go to court,” she said

ONO’s fight comes after Sasol and the Italian behemoth Eni were granted environmental authorisation to drill for hydrocarbons in the middle of seven protected marine areas in August 2019.

This resulted in an uproar from NGOs, which submitted no fewer than 47 appeals, all of which were knocked back by the national government. But, in mid-June 2021, papers were filed in the North Gauteng High Court that represent the strongest challenge yet.

These are only two companies granted exploration rights in an area where 11 companies (made up of 16 other companies) have exploration rights.

The rights holders include:

• Kosmos Energy/Shell/OK Energy;

• PetroSA;

• Ricocure/Azinam/Africa Oil;

• Sezigyn;

• Sunbird/PetroSA;

• Sungu Sungu;

• TotalEnergies/Sezigyn;

• TotalEnergies/Impact Africa;

• TotalEnergies/Shell/PetroSA;

• Thombo Petroleum/Main Street/Panoro/Azinam; and

The Green Connection submitted its comments critiquing several aspects of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, particularly the lack of procedural fairness, as well as the conclusions reached – notwithstanding information gaps and scientific uncertainty – that should form part of Tosaco Energy’s request to undertake various activities in Block 1, off the West Coast.

The environmental justice organisation said it was becoming increasingly frustrated with the government and its apparent one-sided support for the oil and gas industry.

The Green Connection’s strategic lead, Liziwe McDaid, said companies like Tosaco, along with governments, seemed to downplay the potential damage offshore oil and gas exploration can do to the ocean and environment.

“This includes downplaying the threat to the livelihoods of small-scale fishers and fishing-dependent communities. A key issue is that the government seems willing to break its own rules and regulations to accelerate fossil fuel deals, which, really, having regard to the climate change emergency, should be phased out.

“Since the National Environmental Management Act (Nema) EIA regulations make provision for stakeholders to comment on the plan of study in the scoping phase (including what specialist studies are to be undertaken in the subsequent EIA phase), it is worrying that specialist studies were undertaken before the scoping phase,” said McDaid.

She said there are several types of impact studies that would help to better understand how the activities from any proposed project might affect small-scale fishers and other communities in the region.

“However, in this case, even if these communities wanted the EIA to cover more, it was already decided before the EIA commenced that only the marine faunal and the fisheries specialist studies would be done, as well as what each study would entail. Can we then be surprised that both studies predict impacts to range from negligible to low?”

McDaid said The Green Connection questioned the legality of the decisions taken by Environmental Impact Management Services, the consultants working for Tosaco, and the Petroleum Agency SA (Pasa) during the pre-application phase.

“It was at this stage that the two entities colluded in making a decision that two specialist studies would suffice, without affording stakeholders an opportunity to comment on this pre-application decision,” said McDaid.

She also questioned the conclusions reached in the marine faunal specialist desktop study, which was based, in part, on information contained in a generic environmental management programme report commissioned by Pasa and co-funded by offshore oil and gas companies.

“How is it legal, or even ethical, that the very entity mandated to promote oil and gas exploration in the country [Pasa] is making decisions in the pre-application process, rather than the competent authority [the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy]?

“The two specialist reports and the draft EIA report clearly reveal several gaps in information and scientific uncertainty – such as the impacts of 3D seismic surveys – relating to marine fauna and ecosystems in Block 1, which include critical biodiversity areas,” she said.

McDaid said no acoustic sound modelling had been conducted to assess sound propagation and attenuation in the proposed 3D seismic survey area.

“We also question the exclusion of an assessment of potential negative impacts of likely future exploration drilling (which was excluded from the scope of this exploration’s EIA application), such as the risk of catastrophic oil spills resulting from wellhead blowouts, as well as climate change impacts from potential oil and gas drilling, production and end-use, should commercially exploitable oil and gas deposits be identified.”

She said The Green Connection was concerned that not enough effort was being made to ensure that all the potential negative impacts of proposed projects are considered.

“In addition to understanding, quite thoroughly, what implications these could have for small-scale fishers and other communities. We are already witnessing the devastating socioeconomic and environmental impacts of extractive industries, and with the views of stakeholders and potentially affected communities not being adequately taken into account in decision-making processes, this is a major problem in our country, which must not be ignored.”

Andy Pienaar from the Kobush Development Association in the Northern Cape said they are not satisfied with the handling of the entire process.

“Particularly since many of our people were not represented. Furthermore, while some of the information had been translated we, as the community, did not find the information very accessible.

“We expect, as is required by Nema, that communities who may be affected by the proposed project should be thoroughly involved and understand the information presented. This way we would be in a better position to participate in meaningful ways and ensure that our inputs are also heard and valued. As such, every effort should be made to ensure that those who may be affected are able to attend the discussions,” said Pienaar.

[Lisbeth]

Stop oil and gas exploration madness, SA scientists urge government


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. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Nic Bothma

By Tony Carnie | 30 Mar 2022

‘Energy security should be based on science, not narrow, short-sighted political and vested interests. History will judge the current South African government harshly if it fails to act decisively now for the sake of its people and the greater good of the planet.’
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Three senior local scientists have pulled no punches in condemning South Africa’s offshore oil and gas exploration plans as “short-sighted, nationalistic and environmentally irresponsible” and also “morally indefensible” from the perspective of averting the worst impacts of the global climate crisis.

In a hard-hitting commentary in the latest issue of the SA Journal of Science, the three academics say: “The additional greenhouse gas emissions that will originate from new oil and gas fields in South Africa will push the world closer to the tipping point of breaching the limit of 1.5 °C targeted at the 2021 COP26 UN climate summit, and should thus be avoided at all costs.

“South Africa’s pursuit of energy self-sufficiency through local fossil fuel extraction should not come at the cost of its unique biodiversity nor planetary health.”

The authors — Prof Jerome Singh, Prof Aliza le Roux and Dr Sershen Naidoo — are all members of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) of the Academy of Science of South Africa (Assaf), the country’s national science academy.

In their commentary article, titled “Marine seismic surveys for hydrocarbon exploration: What’s at stake?”, the researchers suggest that the seismic surveys planned for the South African coast are effectively a precursor to intensive hydrocarbon extraction and consumption.

They note that South Africa’s massive (1.5 million km2) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is located at an ecologically important crossroad for inter-ocean exchange of heat, salt and biota between the warm, fast-flowing Agulhas current of the Indian Ocean and the cold, nutrient-rich Benguela upwellings of the Atlantic Ocean.

“South Africa’s marine territory is also characterised by spectacular topography, including dramatic canyons, slopes, plateaus, and seamounts. Unsurprisingly, South Africa’s complex oceanographic influences, coastal topography, and geology boast 179 marine ecosystem types, with 150 around South Africa and 29 in the country’s sub-Antarctic territory.

But while seismic surveys posed an “immediate threat” to South Africa’s exceptionally rich marine life, the eventual extraction and use of oil and gas were likely to have much more profound impacts.

“Actively seeking new hydrocarbon deposits to exploit, thus contributing to already dangerously high levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the earth’s atmosphere, poses an existential threat to most life on earth.

“Seen in this context, rationalising the boring of wells to exploit hydrocarbons in the name of energy sovereignty and security, is short-sighted, nationalistic, environmentally irresponsible and morally indefensible. We, as a country, need to rethink this strategy.”

Threat to marine species

So far, nearly 13,000 species had been documented off our coast, including almost a quarter of the world’s cephalopods (octopus, squid and cuttlefish).

“With over 3,800 species occurring nowhere else on earth, South Africa ranks third in the world for marine species endemism. However, even these astonishing statistics may represent an incomplete picture as current knowledge of marine life in South African waters is limited and outdated.”

For instance, biological samples from local waters were largely collected before 1980, mainly from depths shallower than 100m, whereas more than 65% of South Africa’s abyssal zone was in much deeper waters (up to 5.7km deep)

“The abyssal plain in South African waters — where wells would ultimately have to be drilled to anchor rigs for hydrocarbon extraction — is completely unexplored and has not been surveyed for marine life. Undoubtedly, many more species are yet to be discovered in South African waters.”

Following the recent declaration of another 20 offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), 5.4% of the marine environment within the South African mainland EEZ was protected, of which 3% was zoned as “restricted” or “no-take”.

While admirable, this protection still fell short of the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which call for the protection of a minimum of 10% of ocean ecosystems and habitats by 2020.

Seismic Noise

They say noise generated by marine seismic airguns are able to “blanket” areas of up to 300,000 km2, with seismic sounds recorded at locations up to 4,000 km from the source.

“Such robust findings refute claims by oil companies, such as Shell, that “a buffer zone of 5 km” from an MPA constitutes an adequate risk mitigation measure.

“Shell has argued that ‘there is no evidence that any of [the 35 surveys conducted in South Africa have] caused any harm.” Such arguments — encapsulated by the Latin phrase argumentum ad ignorantiam — capture the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false or that it is false simply because it has not been proven true.

“Such misdirection is to be expected of a sector that is fighting to survive as the world rapidly transitions to greener energy sources. Contrary to what the hydrocarbon sector claims, there is ample evidence that seismic surveys detrimentally impact on a diverse range of marine species, including mammals, fish, invertebrates, plankton, and reptiles,” they said, listing several references at the foot of their commentary.

However, the relative paucity of data in the South African context did not equate to no harm nor a low likelihood of harm. Instead, it highlighted the need for more local research on the issue.

The mere fact that seismic surveys had previously been conducted in South African waters “does not establish irrevocable precedent, nor legitimise such activities in perpetuity.”

As a result, South Africa should follow a precautionary approach to seismic surveys.

More disturbing, however, was the potential long-term harm from oil/gas drilling and consumption if new offshore fossil fuel was discovered.

Climate change driven by fossil fuel use affected several aspects of the marine ecosystems, including winds, water temperatures, sea ice cover and ocean circulation and acidification.

Future changes in ocean temperature and chemistry could also drive a cascade of consequences within the marine environment.

For instance, climate change disruption could transfer nutrients from surface waters down into the deep ocean, leaving less at the surface to support plankton growth. This would have a knock-on effect on the entire ocean food chain.

“Left unchecked, such changes will ultimately destroy the fisheries and marine tourism industries of all countries, including South Africa, resulting in devastating job losses, food insecurity, and other adverse socioeconomic consequences.”

Singh and his colleagues also point to the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which suggests that the extent and magnitude of climate crisis impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments.

“Despite incontrovertible evidence underscoring the harmful impact of fossil fuels on the oceans and the wider planet, given that the hydrocarbon sector has everything to lose if the world seeks alternative energy sources, unsurprisingly, the sector has, and will, continue to rationalise its relevance and downplay its detrimental impact on the planet.”

What is at stake for the hydrocarbon sector?

A lot of money is at stake for the fossil fuel industry, they say, noting that the global seismic survey market registered revenues of almost $8-billion in 2020 and was forecast to pass $11.5-billion by 2030.

Major expansion was forecast for the Middle East and Africa market, with South Africa representing a key emerging market for seismic surveyors.

“It would be fair to say that the cessation of offshore seismic surveys in South Africa represents an existential threat to the upstream seismic survey market locally and would undoubtedly undermine Africa’s projected market growth. Not surprisingly, given such vested interests, those who represent the seismic survey market have vociferously defended their sector against those urging caution.”

But it was the downstream hydrocarbon sector that stood to lose even more if further seismic surveys were to be stopped.

“South Africa’s EEZ potentially holds nine billion barrels of oil, equivalent to 40 years of South African oil consumption, and natural gas deposits equivalent to 375 years of current South African gas consumption. The South African government has signalled its enthusiasm to exploit these resources by openly promoting the drilling of 30 hydrocarbon exploration wells off South Africa’s coast within a decade.”

In creating an enabling environment to give the hydrocarbon sector “the comfort to invest in this capital-intensive sector”, the South African government had also committed to conducting emergency response drills to boost its oil spill response capacity.

While such measures could be touted as forward-thinking risk mitigation measures, they also clearly illustrated that the government was under no illusion that offshore oil extraction — especially in South Africa’s notoriously rough waters — carried immeasurable risks for the country’s marine environment.

The ocean circulation current of the Gulf of Mexico, home to numerous oil and gas rigs, moved up to 2m/second, strong enough to severely damage the steel infrastructure of oil and gas rigs.

The Agulhas current along the eastern coast of SA had also been measured to flow at 2m/s, a close second only to the Gulf Stream, which was considered the world’s fastest ocean current at approximately 2.5m/s

They further suggest that the French energy company, Total, had to abandon its deep-sea exploration off South Africa’s east coast in 2014 because rough seas damaged its rig — underscoring the risks implicit in drilling off South Africa’s coast.

“Rogue waves” — waves that are abnormally large and unpredictable and also linked to damaging oil rigs in the North Sea — also occurred with relative frequency off South Africa’s east coast.

“The massive release of crude oil from the breach of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico offers a sobering example of the devastating impact the release of a contaminant can have on ecosystems.”

Greenhouse gas emissions

The government would do well to heed the recent warning sounded by the International Energy Agency, which has noted that:

“The energy sector is the source of around three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions today and holds the key to averting the worst effects of climate change, perhaps the greatest challenge humankind has faced. Reducing global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to net-zero by 2050 is consistent with efforts to limit the long-term increase in average global temperatures to 1.5°C. This calls for nothing less than a complete transformation of how we produce, transport and consume energy. [our emphasis]

“If we have any hope of keeping within a 1.5 °C ‘carbon budget’, by 2050 nearly 60% of oil and fossil methane gas and 90% of coal must remain unextracted … Humanity cannot achieve this collective goal if South Africa does not do its fair share.”

Yet, Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe continued to display unflinching support for the oil and gas sector. His attacks on those who opposed seismic surveys or simply asked inconvenient questions related to his portfolio were also well documented.

“Such factors raise the question of whether today’s politicians are prepared to gamble the interests of future generations and the planet’s sustainability for local, short-term gain.”

These signals, along with the apparent determination to exploit legal loopholes to avoid comprehensive environmental impact assessments constituted a moral wrong and “suggests that our government’s commitment to a sustainable future is mere lip service”.

The government’s Integrated Resource Plan 2019, which set an artificial limit of 33% of South Africa’s energy to be met by renewables by 2030, was yet another indication that political and vested interests were impeding South Africa’s renewable energy potential.

On paper, the hydrocarbon sector supported nearly 248,000 jobs in South Africa (directly, about 1.5% of local employment). Taxes on fossil fuel consumption, production, and incomes amounted to about R100.5-billion (2% of South Africa’s GDP and 7.4% of general government revenue).

However, this revenue was discounted by significant government bailouts for state enterprises that were heavily dependent on fossil fuels, such as South African Airways.

“Revenue from fossil fuels is also dwarfed by the estimated R172-billion in energy subsidies gifted by the government in the 2020/2021 financial year alone. If one factors in government expenditure through bailouts to the state-owned energy company, Eskom… government revenue from fossil fuels is rendered insignificant.

“In fact, once the social costs of fossil fuels (climate change and air pollution-related deaths and lost working days from fossil fuel combustion) are factored in — which are estimated to be at least five times higher than fossil fuel revenues — the net annual cost to society of fossil fuels is approximately R550-billion,” they suggest.

Gas had been touted as a “transition” energy source, but investing in new gas infrastructure would unnecessarily lock South Africa into fossil fuel energy consumption for decades.

“Further, because such investments will take decades to recuperate, vested interests will ensure that these facilities are used for their full lifetimes or beyond, which will only delay the switch to renewable energy sources.

“Such an opportunity cost is economically, environmentally, and morally unacceptable. South Africa’s Cabinet should signify its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the planet by aggressively decarbonising its power sector, not unnecessarily prolonging its lifespan for as long as possible, or worse, ramping it up… History will judge the current South African government harshly if it fails to act decisively now for the sake of its people and the greater good of the planet. DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

OFFSHORE EXPLORATION

Civil society braces for battle after another seismic blasting survey authorised off West Coast



(Photo: Unsplash / Ivan Bandura) | Tosaco Energy logo.

By Tembile Sgqolana | 12 Apr 2022

Following submissions from small-scale fishers in Alexander Bay, Port Nolloth, Kleinsee, Hondeklip Bay and Komaggas, The Green Connection lodged an appeal against the authorisation granted to Tosaco Energy.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Green Connection has lodged an appeal against the authorisation granted to Tosaco Energy by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) to proceed with seismic blasting in Block 1, from Alexander Bay to Hondeklip Bay off the West Coast.

This comes just months after environmental groups and communities were granted interim interdicts prohibiting Shell from carrying out a seismic survey off the Wild Coast and Searcher Geodata from conducting a seismic survey off the West Coast.

Last month, Oceans Not Oil (ONO), an organisation fighting offshore oil and gas exploration, called on NGOs to submit their appeals after Tosaco Energy was granted authorisation to carry out the seismic survey.

ONO co-founder Janet Solomon says the authorisation makes no sense in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas emission reduction timeframes.

The Green Connection on Monday said that Tosaco Energy had received authorisation from the DMRE to proceed with seismic blasting in Block 1 despite communities’ calls for improved public consultation.

Last week, following submissions from small-scale fishers in Alexander Bay, Port Nolloth, Kleinsee, Hondeklip Bay and Komaggas, The Green Connection lodged an appeal against the authorisation.

The Green Connection’s community outreach coordinator, Neville van Rooy, who recently visited several communities in Northern Cape, said these communities are fighting issues similar to the ones that led to the interdicting of the Shell and Searcher projects.

“First, there is a similar lack of meaningful consultation with those who would be affected. During interactions in Kleinsee and Hondeklip Bay this week, communities said that they clearly requested that Tosaco’s consultants, Environmental Impact Management Services, come back to do proper consultation at more suitable times.

“The fact that most of the fishermen were not available to attend the meetings should have been an indication that they face many limitations and challenges, which should have been taken into account,” said Van Rooy.

Van Rooy said because many fishers do not have access to the internet and could not have consultations over Zoom, they had been excluded from participating in the Environmental Impact Assessment process.

“This is why communities believe that this approval is not only unacceptable but also illegal. By now, as demonstrated by the Shell and Searcher cases, Tosaco and any others who have the idea to pursue offshore oil and gas in South Africa must know that proper consultation with the people is not negotiable.

“Equitable and effective participation in the decision-making process as required by the National Environmental Management Act must be ensured,” said Van Rooy.

He said The Green Connection had also questioned the legality of the environmental authorisation as, during the pre-application phase, Environmental Impact Management Services and the Petroleum Agency of South Africa had decided that two specialist studies would suffice, without affording relevant stakeholders an opportunity to comment on this decision.

“However, if we consider the judge’s finding in the Searcher interim interdict judgment, applicants who want to conduct seismic testing are required to meaningfully consult with small-scale fishers and fishing communities that rely on the oceans for their livelihoods and culture, and cannot only rely on desktop studies to understand the impacts of seismic testing operations, especially since there is a growing body of scientific evidence exposing the negative impacts on marine life and ecosystems.”

Van Rooy said in addition to the procedural issues related to the granting of the authorisation, the evidence is clear that seismic surveys cause direct and indirect physical harm to marine species and ecosystems.

“The Green Connection also submits that, based on expert advice received, the mitigation measures proposed by Tosaco would not effectively prevent the likely harm caused.

“And since the seismic activities involve loud explosions [from airguns] in the ocean, The Green Connection considers the lack of acoustic modelling relevant to this area as another fatal flaw in the assessment. Evidence shows that marine species will be affected, even mortally injured as a result of the seismic survey.”

He said The Green Connection believes that because it underestimated the potential extent, range and magnitude of the impacts of the proposed seismic blasting, Environmental Impact Management Services and Tosaco had failed to adequately consider the effects on the small-scale fisheries sector.

“For instance, according to Environmental Impact Management Services, small-scale fishing activities take place much closer to shore than they really do. However, the reality is that some fishers venture much deeper offshore to reach fish stocks.

“The assessment also underestimates the effects of seismic surveys on the behaviour of fish, particularly hake and snoek, within the 3D seismic survey area. As a result, it also underestimates the potential impact on catch rates and the knock-on effect such impacts would have on small-scale fishers and communities that rely on fishing for their livelihoods and culture,” he said.

Samantha Cloete from Kleinsee said: “We have seen a decline in snoek stock … which I believe is a result of the offshore oil and gas projects happening in our oceans. This, along with the lack of meaningful public participation with the local communities that will be affected, are some of the main reasons that we reject Tosaco’s application to explore our ocean for more oil and gas.”

Cloete said they want inclusive and socially owned projects that are in line with the just transition and which address the climate crises.

“We want wind and solar energy. These not only have economic potential but also will not harm our environment,” she said.

Community activist Andy Pienaar from the Kobush Development Association said they were shocked and disappointed that the government had given Tosaco the go-ahead.

“We are also disappointed that the consultant did not explain the document in our languages and in a way that ensures we understand the information. This was something we had previously specifically requested, in addition to requesting that they acknowledge and recognise the indigenous and local knowledge of the people here.”

Pienaar said the lived experience and reality of their communities had to be considered and should have formed part of the application.

“But there is no evidence of this in this cut-and-paste document, because it does not include inputs from local small-scale fishers, nor does it include inputs from our community elders. This is very disappointing.

“We hope that the authorisation will be set aside on appeal and that there will be other opportunities for our voices to be heard. However, as it stands, we are extremely dissatisfied with this entire process,” Pienaar said.

Concerned citizen Dawie Markus from Hondeklip Bay said: “What they call consultation is not what we consider to be consultation, where they force decisions down our throat.

“As small-scale fishers, we are concerned about the potential negative impacts on our ocean and environment. We have been completely blindsided by this project’s approval because we know little to nothing about it.

“But what we do know is that seismic testing in our ocean will harm marine life and the marine ecosystem and as a result, is likely to affect our livelihoods, for us here on the West Coast. We cannot allow the government to force such bad decisions down our throats.” DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

GAS KAPITAL?

Traditional leaders give Wild Coast seismic survey (and Mantashe) a king-size boost


from left AmaMpondo aseNyandeni King Mangaliso Ndlovuyezwe Ndamase shaking hands with minister of mineral resources Gwede Mantashe at Nyandeni Great Place in Libode, in the Eastern Cape on the 21 April 2022 ( Photo: Hoseya Jubase).

By Estelle Ellis and Hoseya Jubase | 17 May 2022

Eastern Cape traditional leaders have sent a stern warning to the government not to neglect rural communities when the gas and oil production project starts.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________-_____________
Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Gwede Mantashe has won considerable support to allow the seismic survey of the Wild Coast to take place after a series of meetings with six of the seven kingdoms in the Eastern Cape and the council of traditional leaders in the province. Traditional leaders, however, have made it clear that they expect local people to benefit from the gas exploration.

At the end of April, after a meeting with Mantashe, the leaders of the AmaMpondo aseNyandeni kingdom, among others, pledged their support for the Shell seismic survey to go ahead. The survey was temporarily halted late in 2021 by court order after a successful application for an interdict by a number of environmental and community organisations.


Nkosi Ntombizandile Tumeka Fono from Caguba locality in Port St Johns speaks during seismic survey discussions at Nyandeni Great Place in Libode in the Eastern Cape on 21 April 2022. (Photo: Hoseya Jubase).

Mantashe told the meetings he had held with the kingdoms that they wanted to make the Eastern Cape the gas capital of the country. Meanwhile, the Eastern Cape High Court is hearing further arguments in litigation to stop the seismic survey of the Wild Coast in the Gqeberha High Court on 30 May and 1 June.

“This blasting will likely cause significant and irreparable harm to marine life in the affected area. This, in turn, will impact upon the livelihood, constitutional rights and customary rights [including customary fishing rights and cultural rights] of coastal communities,” heads of argument filed on behalf of a number of organisations opposing the seismic survey reads.

“When assessing and granting the Exploration Right to Impact, the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy [“the Department”] failed to take into account a number of critical considerations – including the impact that the seismic blasting would have on the livelihoods of affected communities, on the spiritual and cultural practices of such communities, and the cumulative impact of all seismic blasting along the East Coast,” according to court papers.


From left is AmaMpondo aseNyandeni King Mangaliso Ndlovuyezwe Ndamase and minister of mineral resources Gwede Mantashe during a visit to Nyandeni Great Place in Libode in the Eastern Cape to explain about the oil and gas development on the 21 April 2022( Photo: Hoseya Jubase).

The legal teams for the organisations are expected to argue that these omissions rendered the granting of the exploration right and Shell’s seismic blasting unlawful and invalid.

The organisations are asking the court to rule that a holder of an exploration right under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) may not undertake any seismic survey if it has not been granted an environmental authorisation by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment.

Mantashe applauded

Since Mantashe’s roadshow, traditional leaders have sent a stern warning to the government not to neglect rural communities when the gas and oil production project starts.

The meeting at the Great Place was attended by King Mangaliso Ndlovuyezwe Ndamase and all residents living in the AmaMpondo aseNyandeni kingdom, which includes Libode, Port St Johns and Ngqeleni. Most residents vowed to support the oil and gas project. Mantashe lambasted those who were against this, describing them as anti-development.

Ndamase applauded Mantashe’s initiative to visit kingdoms to give information to residents.

“We’ve been hearing that a seismic survey is going to kill the ocean life. But this thing is not starting here. It has been happening in other countries. Why, then, when it is supposed to start on our side there are reports that it will kill animals? As AmaMpondo, we are supporting the development but we also love fish and other ocean creatures.

“We thank Minister Gwede Mantashe that you also explain that the ocean life will be protected during the process,” Ndamase said.

Meanwhile, AmaMpondomise King Zwelozuko Matiwane said he appreciated the manner in which the department conducted its consultations. “We have supported the initiative by the government as it seeks to boost the economy and intend[s] to create more job opportunities, especially here in the eastern part of the Eastern Cape province.”

AbaThembu king spokesperson Prince Langalibalele Mthunzi Ngonyama said the issuing of licences must include local people. “They must not come just to create temporary employment, this thing must be something people will carry to the next generation as a form of inheritance… also the kings must have some power because they are the custodians of the land.”

Ngonyama added that they were not anti-development but they wanted to be taken seriously.

Let it BEE

The Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (Contralesa) in the Eastern Cape has also welcomed the consultation process. Contralesa chairperson Nkosi Mwelo Nonkonyana said they believe the key in rural development is through traditional institutions, including kingships.

“We believe the ocean and the land belong to us and so we will be very, very pleased if the members of communities firstly understand and workshopped about this to make sure that even the companies that are going to be involved, there will be a BEE component that must primarily involve the people within that kingship and as Contralesa we implore to our members to monitor that situation.” DM168

[Lisbeth]

Court bid to stop Shell Wild Coast seismic survey begins


Protesters in Muizenberg, Cape Town call for Shell’s seismic survey on the Wild Coast to be stopped. (Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks)

By Tania Broughton | 30 May 2022

The multinational oil and gas company’s attempt to explore was interdicted in late 2021 pending the outcome of this hearing.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The high court in Gqeberha will today [Monday] hear arguments in an application by environmental groups, local communities and small-scale fishers to review and set aside the decision by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to award a seismic exploration right to Shell.

The matter is to be heard by three judges — Judge President Selby Mbenenge, Deputy Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela and Judge Thandi Norman — over three days.

In late 2021, the seismic study to explore for oil and gas over 6,000km2 off the Wild Coast was stopped. This followed a court interdict secured by Sustaining the Wild Coast, local community representatives and All Rise Attorneys for Climate and the Environment, pending the outcome of the review application.

The survey involves the discharge of pressured air from air guns which generate sound waves.

Those opposed to the survey say it will have a massive impact on marine life — an opinion supported by ten experts whose affidavits were included in the interdict application. The groups also claim that they were not properly consulted about the survey which impacts customary rights, the relationship with their ancestors and the sea, and their livelihoods, particularly for traditional fishers.

Central to their argument is that Shell did not have proper authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (Nema). An earlier interdict application by Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa was however unsuccessful. The judge in that matter ruled that submissions regarding the impact on the environment and marine life were “speculative at best” because there was no expert evidence before him.

Now Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa have applied to join the review application. Natural Justice’s Katherine Robinson said this was because of the similarities between the two court cases.

The applicants argue that the survey, without environmental authorisation, is unlawful in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and Nema. Shell on the other hand refutes this, saying it had obtained environmental approval through its submission of an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) in 2014 and a revised one submitted in 2020.

But the applicants claim that the EMPr is outdated and fails to address the harm to the environment and impact of the survey on community rights, ignoring issues such as cultural, spiritual, or heritage associations to the ocean.

Shell argues that it consulted widely with all affected communities along the coastline, including meeting with local traditional leaders. The applicants say this did not go far enough and that traditional leaders do not represent all people affected by the seismic survey.

Shell and the Minister of Minerals and Energy said that the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy was not required to notify anyone that it had granted the exploration right in 2014, notwithstanding that hundreds of ordinary South Africans registered as “interested and affected parties” during the 2013 consultation process.

Robinson said that if successful, Shell and Impact Africa (the original holder of the right) would be barred from undertaking seismic surveys under the exploration right granted in 2014 which was renewed in 2017 and 2021. “The applicants also seek a declaration that an EMPr under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is not equivalent to an environmental authorisation under Nema.”

Robinson said this would ensure that any future seismic testing abides by the law, including adequate public participation, need and desirability assessments and environmental impact assessments. DM

First published by GroundUp.

[Lisbeth]

This fight isn’t over, activists warn as court hears case against Shell’s quest for Wild Coast gas


Protesters against Shell's seismic blasting off the Wild Coast outside the Gqeberha High Court on 30 May 2022. (Photo: Deon Ferreira)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 30 May 2022

Civil society protests outside the Gqeberha High Court while lawyers fight to have Shell’s exploration right reviewed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Demonstrators led by affected coastal communities gathered outside the Gqeberha High Court on Monday to show their support at the start of the three-day legal challenge against Shell and Impact Africa’s seismic surveys off the Wild Coast, and the 2014 decision by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) to grant Shell an exploration right off the coast of South Africa.

Environmentalists say that while they are putting their faith in the justice system, they will not let Shell rest. The coordinator for the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, Desmond D’sa, said nobody was happy with Shell’s seismic study.

Part B of the case against Shell and the department – which galvanised widespread protest action across South Africa in 2021 – began on Monday after Shell was temporarily interdicted from undertaking seismic blasting in search of oil and gas along the Wild Coast in December that year, until Part B of the original application had been finalised.

This time, the case goes beyond the original interdict to review the granting of Shell’s exploration right. The original applicants, Sustaining the Wild Coast and the affected coastal communities, have been joined by Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa, and are represented by environmental law firm Cullinan & Associates.

On Monday, Judge President Selby Mbenenge, Deputy Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela and Judge Thandi Norman heard the merits of the joinder application.


Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, representing Wild Coast communities, in court on 30 May 2022. (Photo: Deon Ferreira)

The judges are to determine whether Shell required an environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (Nema) and whether its exploration right was lawfully awarded.

Representing the Wild Coast communities, advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC said Shell’s exploration right was granted unlawfully and the company needed to obtain an environmental authorisation before conducting seismic blasting.

“Shell’s exploration right was unlawfully granted because there was no consultation with affected communities. There was no meaningful consultation with communities that will be affected by Shell’s seismic blasting in search of oil and gas.

“None of the notices for consultation was in isiXhosa, and… even if they had been, they were in newspapers that are not in circulation among Wild Coast communities,” he said.

He said Shell relied on consultation with traditional leaders.

“The evidence from the communities makes it clear that this is not sufficient. Shell’s papers reveal that the very traditional leaders Shell consulted made it clear that meaningful consultation with communities was required.”

Ngcukaitobi argued that even if Shell’s exploration rights were lawful, the company should not be permitted to conduct seismic blasting without an environmental authorisation under the Nema.

“Shell accepts that it does not have an environmental authorisation. Its argument is that it does not need one. It is plain in law that this is wrong: they may not commence seismic blasting without one,” he said.

During a protest D’sa said the fight against Shell was far from over: “We are not going to be quiet, we will stand up now and we will deal with them.”

Advocate Nick Ferreira opened with arguments in favour of the joinder of Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa.

In addition to explaining that the respondents do not have the necessary environmental authorisation to conduct exploration activities, Ferreira highlighted that decision-makers had failed to consider climate impacts and key legislation in issuing the exploration right and subsequent renewals.

“Climate change impacts from the future exploitation that was envisaged in granting this exploration right should have been considered, especially in light of the fact that the supposed economic benefits of exploitation were considered.

“They can’t have their cake and eat it: if the benefits of exploitation are relevant, then so too are the climate change harms that will result from it,” he said.


Protesters gather outside the Gqeberha High Court on 30 May 2022. (Photo: Deon Ferreira)

Ferreira said decision-makers had not considered the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (NEM: Icma), which requires all government officials rendering decisions related to coastal public property or coastal activities – including offshore seismic testing – to consider the interests of the entire community, future generations and the environment.

“The minister conceded as a matter of fact that he did not take the provisions of NEM: Icma into account. Even as a check-box exercise, they forgot to check one of the boxes,” he said.

Ferreira said the damning nature of the decision-makers’ failure to consider the NEM: Icma explained the respondents’ “desperation” to see the case thrown out on procedural grounds.

“With respect to unreasonable delay, not only were many impacted community members unaware of the seismic testing due to the inadequate public participation process, but registered interested and affected parties were not even informed of the granting or subsequent renewals of the exploration right,” he said.

In response to the respondents’ claims that the applicants had failed to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court, Ferreira emphasised what Judge Bloem stated in granting an interim interdict, that an appeal to Minister Gwede Mantashe would be futile in light of the minister’s public statements on the issues at stake and on this litigation itself.

Jeremy Gauntlett SC opened arguments for Impact Africa and will continue on Tuesday at 9.30am when the court is back in session.

‘False promises’

Pearl Govender, a fisher from Phoenix who relies on fishing to feed her family, said she believed Shell was going to destroy the community’s livelihoods. “If they are going to drill for oil what happens to our livelihood? What happens to our fish?”

Govender said she was fighting not just for herself but for her four-year-old grandson, who loves fishing.

Wilmien Wicomb, an attorney at the Legal Resources Centre, said the applicant communities told the court exactly how the top-down process of consultation employed by Shell and Impact, and approved by the minister, had excluded them from development decisions.

“That is not sustainable development. We expect the respondents to focus on technical defences to kick the applicants out of court,” said Wicomb.

Thandile Chinyavanhu, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, said that inside and outside of the courtroom, communities affected by Shell’s behaviour had sent a clear, unified message.

“South Africa does not need Shell’s climate-hostile false promises. South Africa needs solutions, like a just transition to renewable energy.”

Ricky Stone of Cullinan & Associates said that the overly opaque nature of the mining industry had been laid bare before the high court.

“While South Africans are long accustomed to being subjected to tick-boxing exercises, the tide is turning, with the applicants firmly on the right side of history,” Stone said. – Additional reporting by Lungi Langa DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

Judgment reserved in case against Shell’s seismic survey along the Wild Coast


Climate activists at the protest action against seismic blasting on the West Coast outside Southern Sun hotel on May 28, 2022 in Cape Town, South Africa. Activists and environmental groups are concerned that the seismic survey, will have a negative impact on marine life and will subsequently affect the livelihoods of the small-scale fishing communities. (Photo: Gallo Images/Brenton Geach)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 31 May 2022

Lawyers at the Gqeberha High Court are fighting to have Shell’s exploration rights off the Wild Coast reviewed.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The second day of the three-day court case between Shell, Impact Africa and environmental activists kicked off at the Gqeberha High Court on Tuesday following arguments from advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC and advocate Nick Ferreira on Monday.

The judges adjourned the matter, reserving judgment in both granting the joinder application put forward by Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa (represented by the environmental law firm Cullinan & Associates) and the declarator that Shell required an environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (Nema), and if their exploration rights had been lawfully awarded by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE).

On Monday, Judge President Selby Mbenenge, Deputy Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela and Judge Thandi Norman heard the merits of the joinder application.

On Tuesday, Jeremy Gauntlett SC, representing Impact Africa, argued against the joinder application sought by Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa, saying the two organisations added nothing new to the case and had decided to attach themselves like a “cuckoo in a nest”.

During the second day, Gauntlett argued that the applicants were using a legal “knobkerrie” via interdict to undermine Minister Gwede Mantashe’s authority to decide the matter, laying blame on imperfect legislation rather than the decision-maker.

Gauntlett also argued that the precautionary principle did not apply to this case but that the relevant question was whether the harm was serious and irreversible.

Demonstrators, led by affected coastal communities, had gathered outside the Gqeberha High Court since Monday to show their support at the start of the three-day legal challenge against Shell and Impact Africa’s seismic surveys off the Wild Coast, and the 2014 decision by the DMRE to grant Shell an exploration right off the coast of South Africa.

Part B of the case against Shell and the department – which galvanised widespread protest action across South Africa in 2021 – began on Monday after Shell was temporarily interdicted from undertaking seismic blasting in search of oil and gas along the Wild Coast in December that year, until Part B of the original application had been finalised.

This time, the case goes beyond the original interdict to review the granting of Shell’s exploration right. The original applicants, Sustaining the Wild Coast and the affected coastal communities, have been joined by Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa.

Representing the DMRE, advocate Albert Beyleveld SC argued that the notification published in a newspaper was adequate, according to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) regulations.

“No consultative process can reach everybody, so the fact that the consultative process in question did not reach affected communities should not render the consultative process inadequate so long as the process met the basic listed requirements set forth in the regulations,” he said.

Beyleveld said the applicants should have instead directly challenged the regulations themselves as inadequate.

“The applicants were required to first resort to internal remedies under the MPRDA before bringing a court application,” he said.

On behalf of Shell, advocate Adrian Friedman stated that an approved environmental management programme (EMPr) under the old MPRDA is not only the equivalent of an approved EMPr under the One Environmental System, but that this EMPr is also the equivalent of an environmental authorisation (EA) under the One Environmental System, and as such, Shell should not have been required to obtain an EA in order to commence seismic testing.

“All three impugned decisions suffer from inadequate exhaustion of internal remedies. The applicants have made a virtue of their own delay and have come to court to make opportunistic arguments instead of turning to DMRE for redress,” he said.

Friedman said the only fair approach to evaluating consultation processes was to apply the regulations as written, without engaging in a further subjective inquiry into the adequacy of the consultation process that took place.

He went on to dispute the fact that environmental harm would result from conducting seismic testing.

Responding to the arguments, Ngcukaitobi highlighted the differences between an EA under Nema and an EMPr under the MPRDA and argued that a plain reading of the laws and regulations undercut the respondents’ “circular and untenable” argument that an EMPr under the MPRDA is the equivalent of an EA under Nema.

He pointed out: “The egregiousness of Minister [Gwede] Mantashe’s biased public commentary and the fact that an entity associated with Shell donated significant amounts of money to the ANC in late 2021. Once it is clear that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, which is where we are, no one can sensibly argue that there are available alternative measures,” he said.

Ngcukaitobi refuted Shell’s claim that a tick-box exercise of those bare minimum requirements expressly stated in the regulations constituted adequate consultation by referring to the Constitutional Court’s stated preference for a procedural fairness standard when assessing the adequacy of consultation under the MPRDA.

Ngcukaitobi said that contrary to the suggestion they had heard over and over again, experts had told the court that harm from the offshore exploration was inevitable.

“After reminding the court that the impugned decisions ignore a whole body of information on harm to human and environmental rights that should have been taken into account, expert evidence [has been led] on the high likelihood of serious harm and the inadequacy of the proposed mitigation measures – some findings with which even the respondents’ experts agree,” he said.

He said if ever there was a case deserving of the precautionary principle, it was this one.

Ferreira told the court that an EA is a legal requirement, independent of an exploration right and that an EA was required in order to undertake any listed activity under Nema.

“As such, the validity of the exploration right is separate from the requirement for an EA, and Shell needed an EA prior to conducting a seismic survey, which is a listed activity under Nema. Further, though the minister has the power to deem an EMPr under the MPRDA to be an EA under Nema, the minister has not actually exercised this power in this case. Instead, as advocate Ferreira described, Shell is trying to engage in a ventriloquist’s dummy trick for the minister to say that the minister has deemed their EMPr an EA under Nema, but the minister has not in fact made any such determination in this case,” he said.

Ferreira reminded the court that the intervening applicants had requested copies of the decisions and corresponding reasons from the DMRE and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, but received no response – preventing them from pursuing internal remedies with the departments.

Wilmien Wicomb, an attorney with the Legal Resources Centre, said Ngcukaitobi had told the court that Shell and Impact had marginalised the very people who live by and from the ocean that they want to blast, by the manner in which they conducted participation.

“It is now asking the court to further the marginalisation by sending them back to Minister Mantashe to do an internal appeal before coming back to court,” Wicomb said. DM/OBP

[Richprins]

Quite the soap opera!

But we really need the gas...

[Lisbeth]

For a while, yes But not starting new seismic surveys

[Lisbeth]

Environmental bodies fight to stop exploratory drilling off SA’s southwest coast


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)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 15 Jul 2022

The proposed drilling area is 10,000 km² in extent and is located offshore roughly between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas, about 60km from the coast at its closest point and 170km at its furthest, in water depths between 700m and 3,200m.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Environmental organisations are doing all in their power to halt TotalEnergies’ and Shell’s plans to drill oil and gas exploration wells off the southwest coast of South Africa.

TotalEnergies EP South Africa and its partners Shell and PetroSA are applying for environmental authorisation to undertake exploration activities in Block 5/6/7 off the southwest coast.

TotalEnergies appointed SLR Consulting to undertake the environmental and social impact assessment process for the proposed project. TotalEnergies has an existing exploration right for Block 5/6/7, where two-dimensional and three-dimensional seismic surveys have been undertaken.

TotalEnergies proposes to drill up to five wells in the block. The area is 10,000 km² in extent and is located offshore roughly between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas, approximately 60km from the coast at its closest point and 170km at its furthest, in water depths between 700m and 3,200m.

Shell seismic surveys halted

In December last year, Shell was blocked from performing seismic surveys off the Wild Coast after affected communities approached the courts to halt the survey, claiming they had not been consulted and marine life would be harmed by the survey.

In March, Searcher Seismic also abandoned explorations off the West Coast after a successful court order by fisherfolk and activists.

Rhinos in Africa started a petition, which was signed by 10,913 people on Thursday, calling on the government to stop the drilling of underwater oil wells near Hermanus, one of the most important whale breeding sites in the world.

The Walker Bay Marine Protected Area near Hermanus is considered a whale sanctuary and an important refuge for, among other keystone species, three different types of these marine mammals with their newly born calves.

According to Rhinos in Africa, before the proposed project can begin, Total-Shell and PetroSA will require the approval of the impact assessments from the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, and, on appeal, from the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment.

Comments on the matter closed on 4 July and Stanford resident Lilly Upton, in her comment, said the Agulhas Plain is one of the highest biodiversity hotspots in the world, with about 2,400 identified plant species within the region.

Biodiversity

“The coastline around the Cape Agulhas region is also incredibly biodiverse as a result of the converging Agulhas and Benguela currents, attracting numerous whales, sharks and dolphins. Geyser Rock, just off the coast of Gansbaai, is one of the last remaining habitats of the critically endangered African penguins,” she said.

Upton said the region is primarily dependent on tourism and subsistence fishing for its existence.

“I strongly feel that we should not lose our natural assets which are valuable to all of the Overberg and Western Cape economy, for human greed,” she said.

Chief Barry Jacobs of Gourikwa Khoisan said as indigenous people, they want to be shareholders in the project.

Patrick Dowling, a committee member of the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa, said the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists have warned that there should be no new fossil fuel projects as they will inevitably lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and take the planet closer to irreversible tipping points and life-threatening climate-related catastrophes such as the recent floods in KwaZulu-Natal, bushfires in Australia and California and prolonged droughts in the Northern Cape.

“South Africa, as one of the world’s highest per capita emitters of CO2, needs to be reining in its fossil fuel-based energy links, not extending them to help reduce the global impact of these and to avoid sanctions as the world becomes more demanding about evidence or energy transition,” he said.

Negative impacts

Dowling said exploration itself is being shown ever more clearly to have negative impacts on marine life at several trophic levels when seismic blasting is used. This adds to the range of other completely unsustainable pressures being exerted on marine species and ecosystems, from overfishing, plastic pollution and liquid effluents to heating and acidification.

“Such exploratory ventures distract attention from far less harmful alternatives and consume financial resources that could be better used trying to comply with the [sustainable development goals] that South Africa is signatory to. Such exploration ignores the concept of a global oceanic commons that should be protected for future generations and respected for sociocultural reasons.

“Several court cases have shown that such concerns are to be taken seriously and not dealt with in tick-box fashion,” he said.

The Green Connection said: “The impacts of noise on all species [of the proposed drilling programme] should be assessed, including potential impacts on the migration of snoek and juvenile turtles that are in turn dependent on other species.

“Within the context of the climate change crisis and the reality that the extraction and use of fossil fuels will inevitably add to GHG emissions, the proposed exploration/drilling project is neither needed nor desirable.” DM/OBP