‘One in 7 000th' chance of oil spill off Cape coast, TotalEnergies tells court

News24

08-05-2025

Environmental groups are challenging an environmental authorisation granted to TotalEnergies for exploratory drilling off the southwest coast between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas.
TotalEnergies last year announced it would no longer be involved in exploration and development activities in the area, but it still holds a 40% stake in the block.
Government's counsel says that environmental groups are deliberately scaring away international investors through 'calculated delays'.
For climate change news and analysis, go to News24 Climate Future homepage.
TotalEnergies has told a high court there is a 'one in 7 000th' chance of an oil spill occurring off the Cape coast, despite concerns raised by environmental groups.
In a three-day hearing at the Western Cape High Court this week, the oil and gas giant defended the environmental authorisation granted to it by government in 2023 for oil and gas exploration in the area known as Block 5/6/7. The block, which covers an area of 10 000 square kilometres, lies between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas.
Environmental groups The Green Connection and Natural Justice lodged a legal challenge in March 2024, seeking a judicial review of the environmental authorisation. This follows an unsuccessful appeals process with the environment minister. The incumbent, Barbara Creecy, had dismissed 18 appeals, essentially upholding the environmental authorisation that was granted by the minister of mineral resources and energy in 2023.
But in July 2024, TotalEnergies unexpectedly announced its withdrawal from Block 5/6/7 – meaning it would not be involved in exploration or development in the area.
TotalEnergies has since attempted to bring Shell (a joint exploration rights holder) into the court proceedings in a joinder application, which The Green Connection and Natural Justice opposed.
According to court documents filed by TotalEnergies, it intends to transfer its 40% interest in Block 5/6/7 to the remaining rights holders — PetroSA and Shell. Shell will also take over operations — such as the proposed exploratory drilling and the related obligations of the environmental authorisation.
The environmental authorisation, which is the subject of the legal challenge, is still held by TotalEnergies.
READ | Alone in the water? Africa Energy the last man standing as TotalEnergies quits offshore gas finds
The applicants said there were significant procedural flaws in various aspects of the environmental authorisation being granted. This includes an inadequate public participation process, improper handling of the appeal process, and the minister's failure to consider coastal management laws and climate implications.
The applicants also presented to Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood that authorities failed to properly evaluate exploration risks, including potential oil spills threatening coastal fishing communities' livelihoods.
Central to the case is whether exploration should be assessed separately from production. i.e., the drilling of oil or gas.
TotalEnergies put forward that these are distinct activities requiring separate authorisation.
According to the applicants, TotalEnergies failed to properly assess the impacts of a potential oil spill on the fishing communities along the stretch of coast closest to the drilling block. They argued that not only did TotalEnergies fail to submit a sufficient socioeconomic impact assessment report, but it also failed to assess the climate change implications of future oil and gas extraction should the exploration successfully detect these resources.
They also contended that TotalEnergies did not submit sufficient contingency plans for a blowout (an uncontrolled release of oil or gas from a well) and oil spill, for the minister to consider. The applicants' counsel argued that this was in direct contravention of South Africa's international climate commitments according to the Paris Agreement.
TotalEnergies, in turn, defended its socioeconomic impact assessment report and said it not only accounted for the impact of an oil spill but relied on modelling of worst-case scenarios to inform mitigation measures.
TotalEnergies' counsel said that there was a 'one in 7 000 chance' of an oil spill or blowout occurring. This tied in with its reply against several of the review grounds presented by the Green Connection and Natural Justice.
Legal counsel for TotalEnergies repeatedly emphasised that the applicants' case was undermined by the fact that National Environmental Management Act does not obligate it or any other party to assess potential climate change impacts from the resulting production during the exploratory phase, adding that extraction and production activities require separate authorisation that would be applied for later.
TotalEnergies stated that it was a technical impossibility to finalise operation-specific oil spill and blowout contingency plans at the exploratory phase and that it would only be able to submit those plans for approval by the South African Maritime Safety Authority closer to drilling execution. It also said that general oil spill and blowout response measures broadly applied to its activities were provided in its reports presented to government.
Calculated to delay
Advocate Gerrit Grobler, representing the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, argued that the Green Connection and Natural Justice have 'been delaying this project from the beginning' and that all legal action it had taken against TotalEnergies has been 'calculated to delay'.
According to Grobler, international investment is being withdrawn from South Africa as a consequence, 'because we can't get moving'.
'The tactics used in the South African legal system with these kinds of things are not international investor-friendly. [These are investors] working with billions of [rands] and once there is a delay, you can imagine what the consequences are with costs rising and interest being lost,' Grobler told the court.
He added that he would not be surprised if TotalEnergies and the Department of Forestry Fisheries and Environment found itself in front of the Constitutional Court against the applicants, should their application for review not be granted.
'It is high time that if these kinds of applications [that delay investments], that are really of no substance, as this one is […], that our courts express their displeasure at this kind of action,' Grobler said.
Judgment was reserved.