OFFSHORE EXPLORATION

[Richprins]

'Show me proof offshore seismic activity is bad'
— SA lost R1bn investment over Shell protests
17 July 2022 - 08:57
Alex Patrick Reporter


The furore over fracking off the Wild Coast last year cost SA at least R1bn in investment.

This is according to Petroleum Agency SA's COO, Bongani Sayidini, who spoke about the oil and gas potential in the country at Friday's first pre-colloquium event in Johannesburg.

The dialogue was hosted by the departments of forestry, fisheries and the environment (DFFE) and mineral resources and energy (DMRE) to engage on clean energy transition.


Sayidini was referring to seismic surveys planned by Shell and the Searcher geoscience company which were set to begin on December 1 last year.

He said there were an estimated 9-billion barrels of oil and about 60-trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas offshore.

Just 20tcf of gas could generate 20GW of power, half the 40GW new-generation capacity needed to meet the country's demand.

The exploration is in line with Operation Phakisa, launched in 2014 to streamline SA's National Development Plan (NDP 2030) for poverty alleviation and social equity.



Environmentalists and concerned citizens protested against exploration in the sensitive ocean environment. Their concern regards ocean health and the wellbeing of animals and indigenous communities along the coastline.

In February the Makhanda high court dismissed DMRE minister Gwede Mantashe and Shell's application for leave to appeal a decision to grant an interim interdict against the seismic survey.


On Friday Sayidini said in the two months from when the seismic activity was permitted to when it was interdicted in December, the country missed out on a R1bn investment and further investments if the tests were successful.

“If we were to produce half of what we estimate in prospective oil we could fully cover the demands of the country and we could export.

“It is only through drilling and seismic activity that we can know how [much oil and gas can be produced].

“If we're not enabling [this kind of exploration] — proving that this country has the resources — we can kiss goodbye our security. Jobs are at risk.”

He said new discoveries of large gas fields known as Brulpadda and Luiperd off the south coast in offshore blocks 11B and 12B by TotalEnergies had already seen a $1bn investment.


These blocks have enough gas for more than 15 years — 560-million standard cubic feet per day or 3,000MW, said Sayidini.

He added that the blocks would create 42,500 job opportunities, 1,500 direct jobs and 5,000 indirect jobs, and it would add R22bn to annual GDP.

“While we [protest against] doing seismic activity, the rest of the continent is drilling and discovering billions of barrels of oil and gas — this while in SA we were engaging in the fracking conversations.

“We have had 12 or so [offshore] drilling sites. What affect have they made? Can anyone show any catastrophic issues or impacts?

“No seismic activity has really caused issues, [there is] harmony between fisheries and oil and gas.”

TimesLIVE

https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/sout ... ty-is-bad/

[Lisbeth]

“We have had 12 or so [offshore] drilling sites. What affect have they made? Can anyone show any catastrophic issues or impacts?

“No seismic activity has really caused issues, [there is] harmony between fisheries and oil and gas.”

Most countries have stopped fracking and drilling because of nefarious consequences on the environment and animals not only nearby, but also situated at a certain distance. I don't understand how Sayidini can sustain the above I do not remember every single incident, but will try to find some of them.

[Lisbeth]

Some of the disasters are listed here: https://www.offshore-technology.com/ana ... disasters/

[Lisbeth]

Searcher Geodata returns to South Africa to pursue seismic surveys off the West Coast


Image: Unsplash / Ian Schneider | Rawpixel

By Onke Ngcuka | 25 Jul 2022

Following a court ruling that halted its operations off the West Coast and saw Searcher Geodata leave South African waters, the company has returned for another attempt to complete its seismic surveys. Small-scale fishers, however, are still opposed to such activity.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The geoscience and tech exploration company Searcher Geodata has returned to South Africa in the hopes of conducting seismic surveys off the West Coast, just months after the company was chased off South African waters by an urgent interdict in March.

In a circulated announcement, the UK company said it was inviting participants as it sought to conduct seismic surveys about 256km offshore of St Helena Bay to 220km offshore of Hondeklip Bay. The company had previously stated it would not return to South Africa should the interdict be granted.

The company had hired SLR Consulting to conduct the halted survey but has now obtained the services of Environmental Impact Management Services as the environmental assessment practitioner.

Alan Hopping, the general manager at Searcher Seismic, told Daily Maverick that the second attempt at the surveying was to answer the question: “Does South Africa have its own natural resources that could provide safe, reliable and affordable energy for all South Africans?”

He added: “We have taken on board the learnings from our last attempt and are planning to address all the issues raised to the best of our ability.”

In his March ruling in the Western Cape High Court to halt Searcher’s exploration, Judge Daniel Thulare said: “If Searcher truly wanted to ensure that [small-scale fishers] were included in the consultation process, it would have advertised [notices of the survey] in isiXhosa, English and Afrikaans.”

This time, notices of the survey were advertised in the three languages. However, Pedro Garcia, the chairperson of the South African United Fishing Front, told Daily Maverick that this didn’t mean they took into consideration the local dynamics of affording access to the information or guaranteed that people understood the issues being raised.



Voice of the people

“It is the voice of the people who are directly impacted that needs to be heard. But, by the same token, they also need to be capacitated. It’s not as simple as saying, we support it or we don’t support it. The problem is in the consultation processes, and whose voice is eventually heard when we have these conflicts or litigation arising after the fact.

“So, our position is really clear: we will maintain a neutral position on this issue until the consultation issues have been adequately resolved … There has to be oversight, there have to be assessments of engagements, etc,” said Garcia.

He added that he didn’t want his comments to negate the economic benefits of offshore exploration and that the community needed to know how to mitigate the effects of offshore exploration on their livelihoods.

Jackie Saunders of the Coastal Justice Network told Daily Maverick the promise of economic gain from foreign exploration companies was false, as much of the profits would be enjoyed in those countries and not in South Africa. She added that it was a ploy to convince poor and desperate local communities of empty job promises.

“I’m not surprised that Searcher is coming back and has applied [for environmental authorisation], because if we listen to our minister of mineral resources and energy, Gwede Mantashe, and to our President, this government seems intent on pursuing an oil and gas agenda, completely defying the United Nations secretary-general’s call to all countries, to all nations to stop all fossil fuel extraction, given the climate emergency.

“As far as I’m concerned, our government, illegally, has captured our ocean and is giving our ocean away to these companies to prospect and explore for their own gain. [They are] not looking at the impact on the livelihoods of the most poor and marginalised users of the ocean, which are the small-scale and traditional fishers as well as the fishing industry as a whole.”

Hopping said the area they were seeking to survey was smaller than the one in the initial survey and limited to the region where they believed they had the highest potential for success.

“The area that we are requesting permission to survey is approximately 100km by 100km, which equates to just 1% of the total South African offshore exclusive economic zone. Another major difference is that the survey area is over 220km from the coastline,” Hopping said.

Neville van Rooy, the community outreach coordinator for The Green Connection, told Daily Maverick the organisation was not surprised that Searcher had returned and hoped it would follow the authorisation process properly.

He said West Coast fishers were not comfortable with seismic activity in their area, where there is a snoek run. He said the matter would be highly contested and would probably head to court, as not only fishers were affected, but also women who run a processing plant in St Helena Bay. DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

Wild Coast seismic blasting – ruling on bid to block Shell expected on Thursday


Activists gather along the M3 at the Shell garage in Newlands, Cape Town, on 4 December 2021 to protest against a seismic survey along the Wild Coast commissioned by Shell. (Photo: Gallo Images / Brenton Geach)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 31 Aug 2022

The highly anticipated judgment on Part B of the legal challenge to stop Shell’s planned seismic blasting off the Wild Coast of South Africa is set to be delivered at the Makhanda High Court on Thursday.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Proceedings in the case between Shell, Impact Africa and environmental activists will start on Thursday morning following a hearing on 30 and 31 May 2022.

On 31 May, Judge President Selby Mbenenge, Deputy Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela and Judge Thandi Norman adjourned the matter, reserving judgment on granting the joinder application put forward by Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa (represented by the environmental law firm Cullinan & Associates), as well as the declarator that Shell required an environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (Nema), and whether its exploration rights had been lawfully awarded by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE).

The case was brought by Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC, Wild Coast communities, Wild Coast small-scale fishers and All Rise Attorneys for Climate and the Environment, represented by the Legal Resources Centre and Richard Spoor Attorneys. Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa applied to join the case, represented by environmental law firm Cullinan and Associates.

The applicants are seeking to review and set aside the 2014 decision by DMRE to grant an exploration right to Shell and Impact Africa to conduct seismic surveys off the ecologically sensitive Wild Coast.

According to Katherine Robinson of Natural Justice, the relief sought, as amended, includes the review and setting aside of:

• The DMRE’s decision to grant the exploration right to Impact Africa in April 2014;

• The DMRE’s decisions to renew the exploration right in December 2017 and August 2021, and;

• A final interdict prohibiting Shell from undertaking seismic survey operations under the exploration right.

“If successful, several flawed decisions on the part of the DMRE will be set aside, while Shell and Impact Africa will be prohibited from undertaking seismic surveys under the exploration right in question. In effect, Shell and Impact Africa would need to reapply for an exploration right to explore for oil and gas along the Wild Coast,” she said.

Robinson said this case also seeks a declaration that an environmental management programme under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is not equivalent to an environmental authorisation under Nema.

“Thus, a holder of an exploration right under the [act] may not undertake any seismic survey if it has not been granted an environment authorisation. This will ensure that any future seismic testing abides by the dictates of the law, including the adequate public participation processes, need and desirability assessments and environmental impact assessments that obtaining an environmental authorisation under Nema requires,” she said.

During the two-day court proceedings in May Shell argued that it should not be obliged to conduct an environmental impact assessment because it had not been a legal requirement when it applied for the permit in 2013.

‘Irreversible harm’

The applicants argued that the survey would cause serious, irreversible harm to the marine environment and called for a strict application of the precautionary principle:

“Shell should be required to conduct an environmental impact assessment, based on the best available science, which has advanced considerably since Shell’s permit was granted in 2014. Further grounds include: lawfulness of conducting a seismic survey without an environmental authorisation; inadequate public participation; failure to consider climate change and the interests of the whole community; and procedural unfairness.”

They argued that the exploration right had been granted unlawfully because there had been no consultation with affected communities and that the companies’ consultations with traditional leaders had been insufficient.

“Even if Shell’s exploration right is lawful, Shell should not be permitted to conduct seismic blasting without an environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act. In awarding the exploration right, the decision-makers failed to consider the contribution of oil and gas exploitation to climate change,” the applicants said.

They also argued that in awarding the exploration right, the decision-makers failed to consider the Integrated Coastal Management Act and its requirement to consider the interests of the entire community, including fishers, as well as ocean life.

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 regulations.

He said applicants should have instead directly challenged the regulations themselves as inadequate: “The applicants were required to first resort to internal remedies under the [act] before bringing a court application.” DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

Activists celebrate big win for Wild Coast against Mantashe and Shell


Hundreds of protesters gathered on 5 December 2021 at Muizenberg corner, Cape Town, to protest against the seismic survey by Shell along the Wild Coast. (Photo: Gallo Images / Brenton Geach)

By Tembile Sgqolana | 01 Sep 2022

The Makhanda High Court has set aside a decision by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to grant an exploration right to Shell to conduct seismic surveys off the Wild Coast.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Environmental activists around the country are celebrating a huge victory after a full bench of judges at the Makhanda High Court on Thursday set aside the 2014 decision by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) to grant an exploration right to Shell to search for oil and gas off the ecologically sensitive Wild Coast.

The case to stop the process was brought by Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC, local communities and small-scale fishers and All Rise, Attorneys for Climate and the Environment NPC, represented by the Legal Resources Centre and Richard Spoor Attorneys.

Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa applied to join the court case and were represented by environmental law firm Cullinan and Associates.

In the judgment signed by Deputy Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela and Judge Thandi Norman, Judge President Selby Mbenenge said the court was satisfied that the review grounds met the threshold.

Exploration right is ‘wrong in law’

“It is demonstrably clear that the decisions were not preceded by a fair procedure,” he said.

“The decision-makers failed to take relevant considerations into account and to comply with the relevant legal prescripts. Therefore the decision granting the exploration right falls to be reviewed under section 6(2) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) and the principle of legality.

“Logically, the renewals arose from the exploration right and have no independent and separate existence from the right. It follows that if the exploration right is wrong in law, the renewals are legally untenable. The decisions are liable to be set aside in terms of sections 8 of PAJA,” said Judge Mbenenge.

He said the decision taken by the DMRE on 29 April 2014 — granting exploration right 12/3/252 to Shell for the exploration of oil and gas in the Transkei and Algoa exploration areas — was reviewed and set aside.

“DMRE decisions on 20 December 2021 to grant a renewal of the exploration right, and on 26 August 2021 to grant a further renewal of the exploration right, are reviewed and set aside.”

Mbenenge said the applicants assailed the three administrative decisions in terms of PAJA — procedural unfairness, failure to take into account relevant considerations, and failure to comply with applicable legal prescripts.

Consultation ‘procedurally unfair’

Mbenenge also said the consultation carried out by Impact Africa was procedurally unfair.

“The decision to grant the exploration right falls to be reviewed on this ground alone, in terms of section 6(2) (c) of PAJA. The renewals depend upon the grant of the exploration right whose process has been proven to have been fatally defective. By the same token, the decision to renew the exploration right also fall[s] to be reviewed,” he said.

On failure to take into account relevant considerations, he said one of the objectives of the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA) was to introduce an integrated approach to management, and here the decision maker did the opposite and dealt with the application as an energy sector-specific issue.

According to Mbenenge, the minister [Gwede Mantashe] was duty bound to take into account the considerations referred to in the ICMA.

“He did not do so. This renders the impugned decision reviewable. The failure on the part of the minister to take into account the considerations dealt with above is fatal to the decision to grant the exploration right and the renewals thereof, rendering these reviewable in terms of section 6(2)(e) (iii) of PAJA,” he said.

On the failure to comply with applicable legal prescripts, the judge said statements were made in the environmental management programme that the seismic survey would create jobs and increase government revenues, but with no detail to substantiate these claims, no explanation of how jobs would be created, how the economy would be stimulated or how the seismic survey would improve the socioeconomic circumstances in which most South Africans lived.

“On this additional ground, too, the impugned decision is liable to be set aside,” he said.

Shell’s spokesperson Pam Ntaka said the company respected the court’s decision and was reviewing the judgment to determine its next steps.

“At this stage we are unable to comment on whether we will appeal… We remain committed to South Africa and our role in the just energy transition,” she said.

‘Benchmark for marine justice’

Wild Coast resident Notshana Gxala said the victory against Shell means they could now continue utilising the economy of the Wild Coast.

“Many of us living closer to the ocean depend on the ocean economy to survive,” he said.

Janet Solomon from Oceans Not Oil said the judgment is a benchmark for South Africa, for marine justice and for the Oceans Not Oil movement. She said they were indebted to the bravery of Sustaining the Wild Coast and the other applicants.

“The judgment recognises the key role of the ocean to livelihoods and the right to food security; the embedded spiritual and cultural connections of South Africans to the sea; that climate change impacts and considerations of further oil and gas development were not taken into account; that chiefs and kings do not have a legal right to speak for their communities; that the entire ocean community, including the marine environment and animals, needs consideration under the Integrated Coastal Management System,” she said.

Solomon said if Shell and Impact Africa started over again, they risked the wrath of a South African community well aware of the damage they were intent on doing and who would fight them every step of the way.

The Green Connection’s strategic lead, Liziwe McDaid, said that once again — albeit with the help of the courts — ordinary South Africans had shown that the Constitution and what it stood for would always win over decisions that were not in the public interest.

‘Great message to the rest of Africa’

“This victory is also a great message to the rest of Africa for African Climate Week, since our continent is experiencing an onslaught of offshore oil and gas proposals, which will have detrimental future impacts.

“If South Africa is serious about climate change, then we must halt all offshore oil and gas exploration immediately. We hope that this court victory serves to signal a shift to good governance of our oceans, which is needed in the climate crisis we face,” said McDaid.

Ntsindiso Nongcavu from Coastal Links in Port St Johns said the ruling meant that their lives would carry on, as their livelihoods depended on fishing.

“We are happy that our plans have been fulfilled and our livelihoods have been secured, not just for us, but for future generations. This outcome motivates us because our government pays no mind to its people, but instead seems to want to make foreign companies richer.

“If the onslaught of offshore oil and gas continues, the future generations will have no interest in the sea as a means of life. We are glad that Shell did not win this case because it would mean that thousands of fishers will not be able to use the ocean as before, because it will be zoned off and turned into a no-go area.

“People will have to be evicted to make space for these operations. That would mean that people’s rights will be taken away from them,” said Nongcavu.

‘Win for the planet’

The Amadiba Crisis Committee’s Nonhle Mbuthuma said the judgment meant a win for the planet.

“If the judgment had been in favour of Shell, that would have meant the whole planet loses everything, because this case is not just about livelihoods. It is about saving the planet and humanity,” she said.

Sustaining the Wild Coast’s Sinegugu Zukulu said that unlike other coastal stretches in South Africa, indigenous communities had maintained continuous occupation of this area, despite waves of colonial and apartheid dispossession.

“This is no accident. Our ancestors’ blood was spilt protecting our land and sea. We now feel a sense of duty to protect our land and sea for future generations, as well as for the benefit of the planet,” he said.

Pooven Moodley, director at Natural Justice, said the victory set an important precedent during the climate emergency.

“The court was clear that communities need to be properly consulted and that environmental impact assessments are critical. The cultural and spiritual connection to the land and ocean featured strongly in the judgment.

“This victory provides hope and momentum as people stand up across the planet. There are 148 oil and gas projects in the pipeline in Africa. This victory will ensure the tide turns,” said Moodley.

Wilmien Wicomb, an attorney at the Legal Resources Centre, said the community scored a significant victory on behalf of rural people across the country — people who were dispossessed daily of their land and resources by the persistent practice of the state and companies who ignored them and spoke only to traditional leaders.

“There is no law that authorises chiefs and monarchs to do that and, in any event, the court said there is no space in a constitutional democracy for such a top-down approach,” she said. DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

Environmental groups lodge appeal after TotalEnergies gets the green light to drill wells off Cape coast


TotalEnergies head office in La Defense business district near Paris. (Photo: Chesnot / Getty Images)

By Ethan van Diemen | 15 May 2023

The EMS Foundation (South) Africa and Climate Justice Charter Movement have appealed against the Department of Environmental Affairs’ decision to grant TotalEnergies the go-ahead to drill exploratory wells off the southwest coast of South Africa.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The EMS Foundation (South) Africa and Climate Justice Charter Movement have lodged an appeal with the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) after the department’s decision to grant TotalEnergies an environmental authorisation to drill exploratory wells off the southwest coast of South Africa.

The EMS Foundation, a network of conservation NGOs, and one of the appellants said in a statement:

“We believe that the decisionmaker failed to give adequate consideration to the public comments submitted by the appellant and other I&AP’s (interested and affected parties) during the Public Participation Process. The decisionmaker failed to consider relevant factors and/or considered irrelevant factors when taking its decision contrary to the provision of Section 6(2)(e)(iii) of PAJA (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act). The decision maker’s decision is neither reasonable nor rational.”

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA) of which the EMS Foundation is a member – submitted comments on the environmental and social impact assessment for the proposed offshore exploration well drilling.

In it, the forum highlights a number of environmental and social concerns.

Among them, WAPFSA says: “South Africa has a high dependency on fossil fuels and as a result, is responsible for about 50% of Africa’s GHG emissions. As one of the top 20 global GHG emitters, South Africa will need to make substantial emission cuts. The proposed TEEPSA 5/6/7 project will contribute to further emissions which could exacerbate climate change affecting life on both land and in the ocean; such as increased risks of prolonged droughts in an already drought sensitive region, increased risks of wildfires and coastal systems collapse, climate change-related impacts in the ocean including sea level rise and associated storm swell and change in currents.”

In a statement released toward the end of last year, Patrick Pouyanné, chairman and chief executive officer of TotalEnergies wrote of the company’s activities in South Africa that, “Concerning the project’s contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I would emphasize that this project is expected to supply gas to the South African domestic market.

“South Africa’s economy is still predominantly based on coal, which accounts for 80% of its current electricity generation. Access to energy, and in particular meeting the growing demand for electricity, is a major concern in South Africa, where load shedding and power cuts have been an almost daily occurrence for nearly 15 years and where air pollution from fine particles linked to coal burning is frequent.

“The use of gas to replace coal combustion for electricity generation halves CO2 emissions and drastically reduces air pollution. The atmosphere will benefit from the avoided emissions made possible by this gas development project.”

Daily Maverick recently reported that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s AR6 Synthesis Report found that the multiple and effective solutions that should be taken to curb the effects of the climate crisis should be placed in the mainstream, as these limit destruction to people’s lives and to the planet.

It also notes that projected emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure, without reducing greenhouse gases through technologies such as carbon capture and storage, would exceed the carbon budget we have left to stay below the Paris Agreement’s 1.5℃ limit.

Limiting the global average temperature increase to below 1.5℃ above pre-industrial era temperatures is essential if we are to mitigate the catastrophic impacts of climate change: rising sea levels, extreme weather events, loss of biodiversity. By staying below this threshold, humanity can reduce the risk of irreversible damage to ecosystems and human societies.

WAPFSA continues in its submission that, “There are considerable predicted risks of impacts on marine wildlife, habitats, and ecosystems. It is of great concern that the area targeted for drilling encompasses one of the most pristine marine environments in South Africa and globally.


The proposed area for the exploratory drilling (Source: supplied)

“The effects of drilling activities on cetaceans and other mammals and fish include tissue damage; in mammals, behavioural changes could involve changes in time spent at the water’s surface, dive times and energy costs due to having to travel greater distances in an attempt to evade the sound. The stress can change body physiology, affecting growth and reproduction and can even result in death. Migratory patterns of large pelagic fish species, as well as their typical behaviour patterns, stand to be affected by drilling activities. These species include various tuna, billfish and shark species.”

It concludes that:

“The current crisis in global energy markets shows that there is absolutely no reason for South Africa to increase its reliance on fossil fuels. Overall fossil gas expansion is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement goals, and as a signatory to the Agreement, South Africa should not undertake any exploration and investment in the development of new gas projects” and “investing in fossil fuels explorations is robbing South Africa of the economic opportunity to change its energy to renewables, including producing green hydrogen with electrolysis from solar and wind resources.”

Dr Vishwas Satgar, of the Climate Justice Charter Movement (CJCM) and Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) and Universities South Africa (USAf), an acknowledged academic, intellectual activist and social justice crusader told Daily Maverick that, “these wells are part of extending the minerals and energy complex to the Oceans as part of Operation Phakisa. The government is hell bent on going ahead with offshore oil and gas extraction given the Eskom crisis that they have created but also given the resources they think can be generated from this. They are disrespecting climate science and are not serious about accelerating the deep just transition.”

“We believe that this particular case and appeal also deals with a sensitive marine protracted area. The CJCM believes in the rights of nature and supports further protection of our marine life and the ocean commons,” said Satgar.

“We believe the oceans should be free from exploration. We reject offshore oil and gas extraction and industrial-scale fishing. We believe strongly that the oceans commons should be managed by communities, small scale fishers and supported by government. It is also sacred for many communities. The commodifying logic of capital is destroying our marine ecosystems, undermining the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon and taking away livelihoods from people.” OBP/DM

[Lisbeth]

Biden walks back Arctic oil drilling rights

Oil development rights in remote Alaska authorised by Donald Trump are being actively cancelled by Joe Biden. The administration is seeking to reverse destruction of an important ecosystem for the sake of energy exploration. Said Biden, "As the climate crisis warms the Arctic more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, we have a responsibility to protect this treasured region for all ages." https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... g%20rights

[Mel]

Read that as well. Good news

[Lisbeth]

Drill, baby, drill: Environment Ministry gives Total green light for Western Cape coast offshore drilling


Signage for TotalEnergies at the company's headquarters in La Defense business district of Paris on 30 August 2023. (Photo: Nathan Laine / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

By Ed Stoddard | 02 Oct 2023

French hydrocarbon company TotalEnergies can proceed with plans to drill for oil and gas off the Western Cape coast after Environment Minister Barbara Creecy rejected an appeal from 18 NGOs and individuals. They can apply to have the decision judicially reviewed within 180 days.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The latest skirmish in South Africa’s battles over offshore drilling and exploration has been won by big oil.

Reuters reported on Monday that Environment Minister Barbara Creecy had rejected an appeal launched to stop Total from drilling in Block 5/6/7 which covers around 10,000 square kilometres offshore between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas.

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) confirmed the report to Daily Maverick and provided the ruling. Parties who object can apply for a judicial review of the decision within 180 days.

The appeal sought to convince Creecy to revoke the environmental authorisation granted in April by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), citing concerns about possible oil spills, noise and the impact on marine life, as well as an alleged lack of public consultation.

Creecy, in her capacity as the appellate authority, dismissed such concerns in the detailed 144-page ruling.

“The authorisation was rational and reasonable … I submit that this ground of review has no merit and is accordingly dismissed,” Creecy said in the ruling, dated 24 September.

Among other issues, Creecy noted that: “Offshore South Africa, 358 wells were drilled with no incidents of a well blow-out to date.”

Creecy said she was satisfied that the public participation process was conducted in line with regulatory requirements.

“I am therefore satisfied that the impacts of noise and light have been adequately assessed and mitigated to ensure low impacts on the receiving environment. As such, this ground of appeal is dismissed,” Creecy said.

The drilling block is about 60km from the coast at its closest point and 170km at its furthest, in water depths ranging from 700 metres to more than 3km. The project is expected to last 10 months – its short duration also informed Creecy’s decision – and five wells are to be drilled.

Offshore drilling and exploration, including seismic surveys, have become hot-button topics in South Africa against the backdrop of mounting concerns about climate change linked to fossil fuel usage and other environmental issues.


Durban environmental activists, fishermen and community members march from Suncoast Beach to South Beach on Saturday, 11 December 2021 in protest against Shell’s planned seismic surveys off the Wild Coast. (Photo: Gallo Images / Darren Stewart)

Shell’s bid to conduct seismic surveys off the Wild Coast has also floundered in the face of legal challenges, as have similar initiatives by other companies off the West Coast.

Regarding Total’s offshore plans, NGO The Green Connection has alleged that they threaten a “blue corridor” of marine biodiversity:

“TotalEnergies plans to invest around $3-billion to launch operations in South Africa’s waters in areas of spectacular marine biodiversity, at the expense of wildlife and of small-scale fishers’ livelihoods,” it says on its website.

“The oil & gas French major is knowingly developing its exploitation project in an area of strong currents and extraordinary species richness, which serves as a ‘blue corridor’ as well as feeding or nesting grounds for thousands of whales, fur seals, penguins, petrels, albatrosses, gannets and endangered leatherback turtles.”

For its part, the DMRE is determined to see South Africa develop its hydrocarbon potential.

Minerals and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe has decried the efforts of activists to block such activities which he has insinuated are Western and CIA plots to hamper the country’s economic development.

Mantashe’s beliefs aside, it is true that offshore exploration and potential finds could produce a windfall of investment for South Africa’s battered economy and possibly provide short-term energy security.

But such projects run the very real risk of becoming “stranded assets” as the global green energy transition and decarbonisation initiatives pick up pace to address rapid climate change.

The world has just experienced the hottest August on record, the latest in a string of such records this year, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

South Africa’s economy, which remains heavily reliant on coal and unreliable Eskom, also needs to decarbonise to remain competitive as key markets such as the EU impose tariffs linked to the carbon footprint of imported goods.

The scientific jury on issues such as seismic surveys remains out – the peer-reviewed literature on its impacts is all over the show – but the oil sector’s economic and social track record in Africa is beyond a doubt.

It has been corrosive, giving rise to corruption and conflict on a grand scale while undermining other sectors of oil-rich economies. Witness Angola, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, among others.

A bubbling oil and gas industry under the ANC would clearly be a recipe for disaster.

Meanwhile, expect more legal challenges from civil society to drilling and exploration activities. DM