Latest news with #TheGreenConnection
The Citizen
4 days ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Appeal launched against Shell's approval to drill off Northern Cape coast
Shell were given approval for the 3 200m-deep well by the mineral resources department but environmentalists are questioning the decision. Environmentalists are appealing the government's decision to grant Shell permission to drill deep into the Northern Cape coast. The Department of Mineral Resources granted Shell environmental authorisation for the site in early July, allowing for drilling up to depths of 3 200m. Citing concerns from fishing communities and heritage organisations over the possible infringement of cultural rights, appellants highlighted what they believe are holes in Shell's initial submission. Third-deepest well in the world Shell's Northern Cape Ultra Deep (NCUD) oil and gas project could tap into deep-sea reserves located off the South African coast between Lamberts Bay and Namibia. If Shell is successful, the well would become the third deepest offshore site in the world. Organisations opposed to the project believe the oil giant's environmental impact assessment report did not cover the required criteria. Natural Justice and The Green Connection's appeal states that the modelling used to determine Shell's ability to close the well in the event of a disaster was inadequate. Additionally, full emergency plans were not disclosed, raising the suspicion of the environmentalists. 'How could decision-makers have considered all the risks or fully assess the adequacy of the various contingency plans, without having detailed, site-specific emergency response plans,' stated Neville van Rooy, Community Outreach Coordinator at The Green Connection. The Citizen reached out to Shell for comment. Any response will be included once received. Inadequate emergency plans The plan listed by Shell in the impact report involved the installation of a capping stack within three weeks of a disaster. The appellants questioned whether such an installation was possible at the required depth, within the stipulated timeframe, as Shell's models were based on existing sites, not the conditions specific to the NCUD. The Green Connection's legal advisor, Shahil Singh, said the perceived lack of transparency violated legal protections and sections of the constitution. 'These omissions are not minor. It may violate the principles of South African environmental law, which demand transparency, precaution, and public participation,' said Singh. Noting Shell's failed attempt to drill off the Eastern Cape coast several years ago, which was halted by court action, Singh said this scenario created a 'pattern' of attempting to dodge oversight. 'It is exploitation — because it doesn't uplift communities nor protect the environment — but destroys instead. 'We cannot stand by while our ocean and our future are sacrificed for short-term corporate profit,' Singh concluded. NOW READ: Money was what pushed Shell out of South Africa – expert
Zawya
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Zawya
South Africa: NGO considers appealing Shell's oil project approval
The Green Connection expressed concern regarding the recent approval of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for Shell's proposed Northern Cape Ultra Deep (NCUD) oil and gas exploration project. The organisation has said that it is currently reviewing the decision and will consider appealing it within the stipulated timeframe. In a statement, it said that the approval comes despite objections raised by coastal communities and civil society, including detailed submissions by the Green Connection and Natural Justice in August and December 2024. Deeply disappointing Advocacy officer at The Green Connection, Lisa Makaula, says: 'This EIA authorisation is a slap in the face of the small-scale fishers and communities who have consistently raised concerns about the project and its potential impact on their livelihoods.' Walter Steenkamp, a small-scale fisher from Port Nolloth, adds: 'We've said before – these oceans are our life. We need a healthy ocean to survive. How can they approve something that could destroy our future? This is why we will not back down.' Small-scale fisher from Doorn Bay, Deborah de Wee, says: 'We are deeply disappointed by this decision. We believe that it's a huge mistake that puts our ocean – and our future – at risk. 'We don't want harmful activities like oil and gas drilling in our waters because we depend on the ocean for our daily bread. This is how we survive, and how our people have survived for generations. 'These projects don't just threaten our food security – they potentially threaten our entire way of life. If this goes ahead, our children may never experience the ocean the way we did. 'With this decision, it feels like we are being robbed of our fishing culture. How will we teach the next generation to make a living from the sea when the risks are so high?' Deeply troubling The Green Connection believes the decision by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) is 'deeply troubling'. Especially as the climate crisis appears to intensify, and with mounting evidence of the potential harm oil and gas activities pose to marine biodiversity and small-scale fishers who rely on a healthy ocean. The organisation says that the targeted area forms part of South Africa's ocean heritage and sustains the livelihoods of numerous coastal communities, especially in the Northern Cape, where many already face social and economic vulnerability. 'Furthermore, despite industry claims, gas is not a transition fuel – it is a fossil fuel that contributes to the climate crisis. 'Climate scientists confirm that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Approving this kind of development now actively undermines climate action and endangers the very communities it claims to benefit, especially since gas poses more climate risks, due to methane emissions that have 80 times the heating potential of carbon dioxide over 20 years,' adds Makaula. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
IOL News
15-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Green Connection slams EIA approval of Shell's Northern Cape oil exploration project
Shell, the oil major, applied for authorisation last year and plans to drill exploration or appraisal wells in the Northern Cape Ultra Deep Block in the Orange Basin. The Green Connection, a South African non-profit organisation focused on environmental and social justice, said on Tuesday it notes with deep concern and surprise the recent approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Shell's proposed Northern Cape Ultra Deep (NCUD) oil and gas exploration project. Shell has been granted environmental authorisation to drill up to five deep-water wells off South Africa's west coast, the company said on Friday, Reuters reported. The oil major applied for authorisation last year and plans to drill exploration or appraisal wells in the Northern Cape Ultra Deep Block in the Orange Basin, at water depths ranging between 2 500 metres and 3 200 metres. Block NCUD is located off the West Coast of South Africa, roughly between Port Nolloth and Saldanha Bay. This approval comes despite repeated objections raised by coastal communities and civil society, including detailed submissions by The Green Connection and Natural Justice in August and December 2024. Advocacy Officer at The Green Connection, Lisa Makaula said, 'This EIA authorisation is a slap in the face of the small-scale fishers and communities who have consistently raised concerns about the project and its potential impact on their livelihoods.' Walter Steenkamp, a small-scale fisher from Port Nolloth, said, 'We've said before – these oceans are our life. We need a healthy ocean to survive. How can they approve something that could destroy our future? This is why we will not back down.' Small-scale fisher from Doorn Bay, Deborah de Wee said, 'We are deeply disappointed by this decision. We believe that it's a huge mistake that puts our ocean – and our future – at risk. We don't want harmful activities like oil and gas drilling in our waters because we depend on the ocean for our daily bread. This is how we survive, and how our people have survived for generations. These projects don't just threaten our food security – they potentially threaten our entire way of life. If this goes ahead, our children may never experience the ocean the way we did. With this decision, it feels like we are being robbed of our fishing culture. How will we teach the next generation to make a living from the sea when the risks are so high?' The Green Connection said as the climate crisis appears to intensify, and with mounting evidence of the potential harm oil and gas activities pose to marine biodiversity and small-scale fishers who rely on a healthy ocean, this decision by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources is deeply troubling. The targeted area forms part of South Africa's precious ocean heritage and sustains the livelihoods of numerous coastal communities – especially in the Northern Cape, where many already face social and economic vulnerability. 'Furthermore, despite industry claims, gas is not a transition fuel – it is a fossil fuel that contributes to the climate crisis. Climate scientists confirm that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Approving this kind of development now, actively undermines climate action and endangers the very communities it claims to benefit, especially since gas poses more climate risks – due to methane emissions that have 80 times the heating potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period,' said Makaula.
Mail & Guardian
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Draft oil and gas regulations spark climate justice concerns
Seismic explorations for new oil and gas resources are going to escalate in the years to come. (Paul Botes/M&G) This is contained in a The Act is under review by the department, following its passage by parliament in April last year. The draft regulations are designed to implement the new law, which focuses on the orderly development of petroleum resources, equitable access and the sustainable development of the country's petroleum resources. The Green Connection said it formally endorsed a recent The regulations may fall short on several fronts, said Shahil Singh, a legal adviser at The Green Connection. 'We are most concerned about the issue of public participation. People may not be able to meaningfully engage with decisions that may affect their homes, livelihoods, and natural heritage if the terms that enable their participation are too restrictive,' Singh said. 'The definition of who qualifies as an 'interested and affected party' needs to be broadened to ensure that it does not silence those whose voices matter most — particularly small-scale fishers and coastal residents. 'Moreover, expecting communities to pay a non-refundable fee to appeal administrative decisions, could create obstacles to justice that marginalised communities should not have to endure. People should not have to pay to ensure that their voices are heard.' The global climate crisis necessitates an urgent and decisive transition away from fossil fuels, Singh wrote in the letter. 'The draft regulations, however, appear to promote the continued and expanded exploitation of oil and gas resources, directly contravening the country's national and international climate change commitments.' The Green Connection shared the 'profound concern'expressed in the joint submission that the promotion of gas as a transitional fuel, particularly for 'Methane emissions could potentially have a greater impact than those of carbon dioxide and may be up to eighty-two times more impactful over a 20-year period. 'We strongly support the joint submission's call for the draft regulations to explicitly define and incorporate critical terms such as 'greenhouse gas (GHG)', 'Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions', and 'sectoral emission targets'.' This is essential for alignment with the 'The failure of the draft regulations to mandate comprehensive lifecycle assessments that include quantification of all greenhouse gas emissions (including methane leaks and Scope 3 emissions) as well as the unquantified social cost of carbon, as highlighted by the joint submission, is a critical omission that undermines any claim of environmentally responsible development,' Singh said. Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure without rigorous scrutiny of the possible environmental and social implications runs counter to the global imperative for decarbonisation and South Africa's own stated commitments to a just energy transition. 'The Green Connection believes that the concerns and detailed recommendations articulated in the joint submission … are fundamental to ensuring that the regulatory framework for upstream petroleum activities in South Africa upholds constitutional environmental rights, promotes genuine public participation, protects our invaluable marine ecosystems and the livelihoods they support, and aligns with our urgent climate change obligations,' said Singh. The country's marine and coastal ecosystems are invaluable national assets, ecologically sensitive and critical for biodiversity and livelihoods. 'The Green Connection is deeply concerned that the draft regulations, in their current form, may fail to provide adequate protection for these environments against the inherent risks of upstream petroleum activities.' It aligned itself with the joint submission's assertion that the Act and its draft regulations appear to facilitate an accelerated expansion of oil and gas activities without adequately addressing the possibility of severe environmental impacts, Singh said, noting that this is particularly alarming for offshore exploration and production. 'We endorse the call for mandatory lifecycle impact assessments for all petroleum projects, which must quantify cumulative impacts, including those specific to marine ecosystems such as seismic impacts on marine fauna, potential for oil spills, and disruption of marine ecological integrity,' he said. The 'current vague reference' to 'possible impact on the environment' in notice requirements is wholly insufficient, he argued. 'The inadequacy of consultation requirements for offshore developments, which may exclude those with a significant interest if not 'directly affected' or if the landowner/lawful occupier concept is inappropriately applied to marine spaces, is a critical flaw identified in the joint submission that we support rectifying.' Coastal communities, particularly small-scale fishers, depend intrinsically on healthy marine ecosystems for their livelihoods, food security and cultural heritage. Upstream petroleum activities may pose direct and significant threats to these communities through potential pollution, displacement from traditional fishing grounds and adverse impacts on marine resources. 'We particularly highlight the joint submission's critique of regulation 23(1)(g), which vaguely mentions 'provision for co-existence with fishermen, where applicable', within local content plans, deeming it so vague as to be almost meaningless. Such provisions must be substantive and genuinely protect fishing communities. The broader failure of the draft regulations to create any meaningful obligations on rights holders to address and mitigate the adverse socio-economic impacts of petroleum operations on affected local communities, including fishing communities, 'is a grave concern we share with the joint submission'. The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance said in its comments on the proposed regulations that there is no provision made for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 'There is also no plan for the transition to ensure a move from upstream fossil fuel developments to alternative sources as per the country's objectives.' The Climate Change Act aims to reduce carbon emissions and ensure the country moves from a carbon-intensive economy to a low-carbon intensive economy, however the draft regulations 'disregard this'. By disregarding the climate change question, these developments will result in more climate change-related disasters such as floods, droughts and runaways fires. Areas such as Durban that have been 'With South Africa having signed to commit to net zero by 2050, 25 years away (less than one term of a production right) this is a regressive piece of legislation,' it said.
News24
08-05-2025
- Business
- News24
‘One in 7 000th' chance of oil spill off Cape coast, TotalEnergies tells court
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.
