High court rescinds permit for Shell, TotalEnergies to explore for oil off west coast
However, the court said TotalEnergies should be given a chance to rectify deficiencies identified, including a failure to properly assess the potential socioeconomic impacts of oil spills or take climate change into consideration.
'TotalEnergies must be afforded the opportunity to submit new or amended assessments to cure the deficiencies identified,' judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood said in her August 13 ruling.
A TotalEnergies spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The French company said last year it intended to exit the concession, Block 5/6/7 between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas, leaving the operatorship to Shell, with PetroSA holding a minority share.
The order is the latest in a series of court challenges between environmentalists and oil companies looking to explore along South Africa's coast.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Joy at last for first successful land restitution claimants
Elandskloof CPA committee members outside the Western Cape High Court. Image: Supplied AFTER more than two decades, the Elandskloof community, South Africa's first successful land restitution claim involving over 300 families, is set to regain full control of their land. The Western Cape High Court on Thursday lifted the administration order placed on their Community Property Association (CPA) in 2005. 'The administration order granted by this court on 18 October 2005 under the hand of her Ladyship Ms Justice Ndita in terms of the provisions of section 13(1) of Communal Property Associations Act 28 of 1996 be rescinded with immediate effect,' the court ruled. In 1996, Elandskloof, a rural village in the Cederberg made history as the first successful land restitution case in a newly democratic South Africa. It also became home to the country's first CPA, established and registered under the newly enacted Communal Property Association Act of 1996. The history of the Elandskloof community dates back to the early 1800s. In 1962, as a result of apartheid forced removals, families who had lived on the land for generations were displaced and resettled in various parts of what was then the Cape Province. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Although the resettlement process began in 1998, it soon stalled due to financial constraints. In the years that followed, the shortcomings of the restitution process became increasingly evident: land was returned without the capital or support needed to develop it, and many beneficiaries disconnected from rural livelihoods after decades of displacement continued to carry the deep scars of apartheid. The process was marked by ongoing tensions and conflict within the community. The Department of Land Reform and Rural Development eventually applied to the Western Cape High Court to place the Elandskloof CPA under administration, steps the government deemed necessary to address persistent mistrust, internal conflict, non-compliance, and a lack of skills and capacity within the CPA. The department then this year approached the court to have the administration rescinded, to relieve the government of its administrative role and return full control of the CPA's affairs to its duly elected committee, allowing the community to govern itself. Some of the steps taken by the department during the administration period included a local committee being established consisting of the members of the community occupying the land to assist the officials with the management of the day to day issues of the residents. Basic services such as the provision of electricity, water and refuse collection were restored by the local municipality. A mediator was appointed to mediate the dispute between the members of the CPA. 'The annual general meetings (AGM) of the (CPA's) members were restored with attendance of the majority of the members of the community. The committee of the respondent was duly elected by its own community members to resume an independent management of its own affairs for the benefits of Its members and by themselves,' the department's court application for the rescission read. 'The committee is positive and dedicated and fully capable of executing its tasks and responsibilities. The environment in the community has less mistrust, tension and conflict and is conducive for the respondent to regain full ownership of its processes, roles and function. The (CPA) is confident that they are ready to take full ownership of its processes, whilst it may be (with) continued support from the department and other institutions on an ad hoc basis.' Beneficiary Ansie Visagie travelled from Worcester to be at the high court on Thursday. 'We feel very excited about the milestone we've reached today. It's a big moment, especially after what happened in 1996 and the setback that followed in 2005. Many beneficiaries have since passed away, which makes this moment even more special. "My vision for Elandskloof is that it should be a developed farm where people can function independently, where individuals can do something for themselves and truly operate independently. The most important thing that must happen is that people must get proper housing. Especially for the elderly, they deserve the joy of having a real house they can call their own.' Committee chairperson, JP George added: 'I spoke with a lump in my throat when I spoke to the committee. Words cannot describe it, we fought something like 34 years to get Elandskloof back and we were under administration for 20 years. We are grateful, now we can regroup and build Elandskloof into what we know it can be. It's a milestone in our history. It shows if we work together and believe in each other, we can reach success.'
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Western Cape High Court halts offshore drilling in landmark environmental ruling
The Western Cape High Court has halted offshore drilling in the South-West Coast known as Block 5/6/7, setting aside the environmental authorisation granted to TotalEnergies EP South Africa (Teepsa), which intended to transfer it to Shell. Image: Supplied The Western Cape High Court has halted offshore drilling in the South-West Coast known as Block 5/6/7, setting aside the environmental authorisation granted to TotalEnergies EP South Africa (Teepsa), which intended to transfer it to Shell. It is a landmark and victory for The Green Connection and Natural Justice, which found serious flaws in the environmental impact assessment (EIA). The matter under review was between The Green Connection and Natural Justice as applicants and the respondents being: Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Director General: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, TotalEnergies EP South Africa block 567 (PTY) LTD, Shell Exploration & Production South Africa. On Wednesday, Judge Mangcu-Lockwood's judgment called for the Department of Minerals and Petroleum to conduct fresh assessments, gather more information, and facilitate public participation. This means that the South African government's approval of TotalEnergies EP South Africa's environmental authorisation to drill for oil and gas in offshore areas known as Block 5/6/7 along the South-West Coast has been set aside after it was challenged by the Green Connection and Natural Justice. Together they argued that the approvals were given without properly considering the risks to the environment, people's livelihoods, and South Africa's climate commitments. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ According to court papers, the review application concerns the granting of an environmental authorization ('the EA') to Total in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 ('NEMA'), for the purpose of conducting exploration drilling to determine whether geological structures contain oil or gas - fossil fuels - in potentially extractable amounts. Mangcu-Lockwood ordered that the decision made by the Director General: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy on April 17 2023, granting environmental authorization to the fourth respondent (TotalEnergies EP) for exploratory operations in Block 5/6/7, is reviewed and set aside. It further stated that the fourth respondent must be given the opportunity to submit new or amended assessments, as deemed necessary, to address the deficiencies identified in the review including that a public participation process. Shahil Singh, Legal Advisor to The Green Connection, said the court found the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) failed to fully examine the consequences of a major oil spill on local and neighbouring coastal communities. 'Total and Shell will now need to undertake additional studies, make these plans publicly available, and properly assess both coastal and cross-border risks before any decision is taken,' said Singh. The Green Connection's Strategic Lead, Liziwe McDaid said in response to the order: 'Our country's laws demand full, open, and honest assessment, not partial studies, not secrecy, and not ignoring inconvenient truths. Natural Justice, Defending Rights Programme Manager, Melissa Groenink-Groves added: 'This judgment is a victory in the growing opposition to oil and gas exploration in our country. Recently, a number of oil and gas projects have been given Environmental Authorisation, but this judgment again confirms that companies must follow due process, undertake comprehensive assessments and provide communities with an opportunity to have their voices heard, in respect of all relevant information. It confirms that our fight for our environmental rights is strong, and that we must continue for the future for our children. Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel. Cape Argus
Mail & Guardian
3 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
High court victory for coastal communities against TotalEnergies, Shell over offshore drilling
The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa to drill for oil and gas in offshore areas known as Block 5/6/7 along the country's south-west coast. The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa The court has sent the matter back to the department of minerals and petroleum to make a fresh decision, following further studies, the addition of further information and public participation. While the authorisation was initially granted to TotalEnergies, the company intends to transfer the environmental authorisation to Shell to conduct the drilling. Wednesday's In addition to setting aside the environmental authorisation, the court ordered that a fresh decision be made. Before any approval can be reconsidered, Total — or Shell — must submit new or amended assessments. These must fully examine the socio-economic impacts of a well blowout on coastal communities; the project's full life-cycle climate impacts; all factors required under the The bulk of the applicants review grounds were premised on the final environmental impact assessment report failing to meet the standards imposed by the Specifically, they contended that the decisions to grant the environmental authorisation were unlawful and irrational in six respects. Among these were that the final environmental impact assessment report failed to properly assess — and the state respondents failed to consider — the socio-economic effects of the proposed project, 'which a well blowout and consequent oil spill will have on the fishing industry and small-scale fishers'. The applicants argued that the state respondents failed to consider the factors prescribed by the Integrated Coastal Management Act and failed to properly assess and consider the need and desirability of the proposed project in relation to the climate change impacts, 'which will be caused by burning any gas discovered by the proposed project'. The state respondents failed to assess and consider the transboundary effects of the proposed project both on Namibia and on international waters. Neither the final environmental impact assessment report, nor the environmental management programme report, included Total's oil spill or blowout contingency plans, they argued. The respondents were the ministers of environment and energy, the director-general of the department of mineral resources and energy, TotalEnergies EP South Africa Block 567 and Shell Exploration & Production South Africa. In its judgment, the court found that the environmental impact assessment failed to fully examine the consequences of a major oil spill on local and neighbouring coastal communities, ignored coastal protection laws and omitted critical climate and fairness considerations, said Shahil Singh, the legal adviser to the Green Connection. 'A critical omission, the oil spill and blowout contingency plans were withheld from the public until after approval, denying communities the chance to comment on emergency preparedness,' Singh said. 'Total and Shell will now need to undertake additional studies, make these plans publicly available and properly assess both coastal and cross-border risks before any decision is taken.' The court found that the lack of oil spill and blowout contingency plans meant that there had not been a full assessment and description of the manner in which Total intended to respond to pollution or environmental degradation, as required by the National Environment Management Act. The court found it even more problematic that there was no public participation in relation to the response plans. Singh termed the court victory a significant win for transparency, precaution and for the rights of coastal communities and small-scale fishers who refuse to be sidelined in decisions that affect their livelihoods and the future of our oceans. While the project's final environmental impact assessment report admitted that an oil spill or blowout could cause serious damage to the coastal environment, it did not assess the full economic and social impacts on the small-scale fishers and coastal communities who depend on these waters for food and income. To the extent that there were or are limitations in conducting such assessments, Total was compelled to adopt a cautious approach and take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm of an oil spill or blowout materialised. 'Once the final environmental impact assessment report identified the potential blow out and oil spill as potentially significant impact or risk, it was obliged to assess the consequences and the probability of the impact or risk, including those with a low degree of probability of a blowout or oil spill,' the judgment read. That is in light of the risk-averse and cautious approach espoused by the National Environment Management Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, in terms of which the limitation on present knowledge about the consequences of an environmental decision must be taken into account. 'The precautionary approach entails that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to a resource, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. 'It means that, where there exists evidence of possible environmental harm, such as a possible blow-out or oil spill as the final environmental impact assessment report accepts, a cautious approach should be adopted, and if necessary decision-makers may compel the party to take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm materialises.' Scientific spill modelling for the project showed that oil from a disaster could reach the waters and shores of Namibia. International law, and South Africa's own laws, require that the impacts on neighbouring countries should be considered, and that there was an obligation for the environmental impact assessment to consider the harms caused by transboundary impacts, and for this to be considered by the decision-makers. The court found they did not. According to the judgment, at the very least, it has been established that there is a risk of oil spill and a blowout occurring, and a risk of the oil reaching Namibian waters and the Namibian shoreline. The approach adopted by the respondents, to the effect that the National Environment Management Act and the environmental impact assessment regulations do not require environmental impact assessment to assess and predict transboundary harm is 'inconsistent with the customary international law and international law obligations. 'It is also contrary to the [ National Environment Management Act] principles and Integrated Coastal Management Act, which recognise the need to discharge global and international responsibilities,' the court found. The court confirmed that the assessment of climate change impacts should form part of this assessment. 'While it is correct that the specific activity for which the environmental authorisation in this case is granted is exploration and not production, and that the former process will not always result in the latter process, the two processes are intertwined,' the judgment noted. There would be no point in conducting an exploration activity unless an entity hoped to proceed to the next phase of production. 'And it is not speculation to conclude that by the time such an entity applies for authorisation to conduct the next phase, it is armed with information that places it at an advantage to proceed to the next phase.' Climate change is relevant to both exploration and production activities. 'It makes no sense to rely on the positive consequences of the production stage for purposes of considering an application at the exploration stage, only to resist considering the negative consequences of the production stage when it comes to consideration of climate change.' The judgment is 'a victory in the growing opposition to oil and gas exploration in our country', said Melissa Groenink-Groves, the defending rights programme manager at Natural Justice. 'Recently, a number of oil and gas projects have been given environmental authorisation but this judgment again confirms that companies must follow due process, undertake comprehensive assessments and provide communities with an opportunity to have their voices heard, in respect of all relevant information. 'It confirms that our fight for our environmental rights is strong and that we must continue for the future for our children,' she said. Lesai Seema, director at Cullinan & Associates, which represented the applicants, said the judgment makes it clear that the granting of environmental authorisation for offshore oil and gas exploitation will be unlawful if the decision-maker does not carefully consider a range of factors necessary to 'safeguard the long-term collective interests of people and other living organisms who depend on the coastal and marine environment'.
