This is not a drill: Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries Barbara Creecy has dismissed 47 appeals challenging Sasol’s authorisation to proceed with drilling off the KwaZulu-Natal Coast, in a decision activists have called flawed. Photo: varenergi.no
Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries Barbara Creecy has shot down a volley of appeals against a controversial oil and gas exploration project along the east coast of KwaZulu-Natal.
On 17 December, Creecy dismissed 47 appeals challenging the department of mineral resources and energy’s August 2019 environmental authorisation for Sasol and its Italian exploration partner to drill up to six exploratory deep-water wells under the seabed between Richards Bay and Scottburgh, about 62km offshore. Sasol’s exploration partner is Eni South Africa, a multinational oil and gas company.
Up to four wells will be drilled in offshore block ER236 in the northern area of interest in water depths ranging between 1 500m and 2 100m, and in the southern area in water depths between 2 600m and 3 000m.
Janet Solomon, from Vanishing Present Productions, one of the appellants, said Creecy had given two companies with “poor risk mitigation reputations” the green light to drill at record depths in the Agulhas Current, known to be one of the strongest in the world. “The very last thing that the economies of tourism, fisheries and recreation need is pollution on any scale, let alone the scale of an oil spill,” Solomon said.
Environmental Affairs Minister Barbara Creecy. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
Numerous studies have shown how offshore oil and gas exploration disturbs coastal and marine ecosystems, said nonprofit organisation Oceans Not Oil, of which Solomon is co-founder.
KwaZulu-Natal’s extensive beaches are a popular tourist destination, with several marine-protected areas along the region’s coastline, contributing significantly to its biological diversity and ecological health.
Healthy oceans, say the project’s opponents, are critical to marine life and coastal communities, which rely on tourism, fishing and recreational activities. The grounds of appeal were numerous, spanning the effects of exploration drilling on fisheries, tourism and associated livelihoods; the effects and risks from oil spills and drilling activities; and the failure to undertake a strategic environmental assessment.
Further grounds included the lack of capacity in regulatory agencies for dealing with compliance monitoring and large offshore oil spills; environmental risks and the shortcoming of the public participation; and the environmental-impact-assessment process.
That no cost-benefit analysis was conducted to show how potential oil and gas use could benefit South Africa if this project proceeds to the production phase was also raised by appellants. Conflict of interest was also raised, because the department of minerals and energy is “making the decision on the oil and gas exploration as well as on the environmental authorisation”.
For marine ecology and the coastal zone, the appellants highlighted the lack of baseline environmental information. The appellants are worried about the effects of drilling infrastructure and support vessels on marine animals, as well as the effects of noise and seismic testing. Further concerns centred on the effects of drilling on marine-protected areas and critical biodiversity areas, and the introduction of alien species that might become invasive.
But Creecy dismissed each ground, stating she was satisfied with the applicant’s environmental studies and proposed mitigation measures.
Environmental attorney Kirsten Youens, who filed the Wild Oceans appeal together with environmental attorney Adrian Pole, said Creecy’s decision was unfortunate but anticipated.
“I do not doubt that all those who appealed the original authorisation will take this further. Opposing fossil fuel is vital to slow down the climate crisis,” Youens said.
Experts that Wild Oceans contracted for its appeal submission found that a large spill or blowout would significantly affect the marine environment from the shoreline to the deep sea.
They detailed how Eni-Sasol consultants failed to consider vital information about oil spills from such depths, information gained over the past decade after the Deepwater Horizon incident.
In April 2010, the BP Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing 11 people and unleashing the biggest-ever oil spill in the US. About five million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.
According to oceanic and atmospheric research scientists, about 20% of all oceanic juvenile Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles present during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill perished from oil exposure.
The spill also reduced the survival and reproductive rate and success of bottlenose dolphins, leading to a 50% decline in the population. However, Creecy said the studies submitted by the applicants indicated the probability of a blowout leading to a large oil spill was “low and or rare”, and the likelihood of a spill crossing the Agulhas Current and reaching the shoreline was “even lower”.
She noted that the applicants had advised that the effects of the venture on climate change from greenhouse gas emissions were assessed to be negligible.
These effects could be contained locally and would be partially reversible.
Solomon said Creecy was the one person mandated to link offshore oil and gas exploration with global warming, but instead she decoupled them.
“This disinclination to address climate change in the decision-making process has direct knock-on effects and large potential risks to us all.”
Desmond D’Sa, of appellant South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, said Creecy’s decision was flawed. “Most countries are moving away from drilling in the ocean. But our government wants to continue to go down the cul de sac that is creating the climate crisis that is affecting people all over the country.”
Solomon agrees.
“The government is pushing the ‘gas as power’ narrative hard, but there are numerous risks involved. Whether gas can achieve substantial climate benefits in the transition from coal-based electricity is highly contentious.”
The appellants detailed how noise and seismic surveys or testing will harm marine mammals, including some classified as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.
The short duration of vertical seismic profiling, used as a measurement tool to survey the seabed, means the total effects of seismic activities on marine animals will be minor in the context of available resources, Creecy found.
Seismic airguns are used to examine layers of the sea floor to find oil and gas deposits. They rapidly release compressed air, which cavitates and produces pressure and loud sound waves — up to 240 decibels — that travel through the water to the ocean floor.
Blasts are repeated as often as every 10 seconds for days, weeks or months at a time, according to ocean conservation charity Oceana.
Solomon said these airguns can induce hearing loss, physiological stress, organ rupture and mass strandings for marine animals, among other effects.
The Sasol and Eni project is being bolstered under the government’s Operation Phakisa, which set a target in 2014 to locate and drill 30 exploration wells by 2024. In November, parliament’s portfolio committee on environment, forestry and fisheries heard from Creecy’s department that a total of five wells had been drilled since 2014 and “the traction had been very slow”.
Solomon said the potential greenhouse gas emissions from Operation Phakisa’s predicted nine billion barrels of oil and 11-billion barrels of oil-equivalent of gas from offshore wells “would melt over a hundred square kilometres of Arctic ice, which in turn will exacerbate sea-level rise”.
Sasol spokesperson Matebello Motloung said Sasol and Eni had no immediate plans to drill any wells in Block ER236. “Any future activity that may take place will first require regulatory approval of the renewal exploration application.”
Eni is a global leader in deep-water hydrocarbon exploration and production with some of the industry’s best upstream oil and gas expertise.
“This expertise is essential, particularly given the nature of the deep waters of the KwaZulu-Natal coast. Furthermore, both Sasol and Eni uphold the same stringent standards to safety, compliance and environmental management,” said Motloung.
Eni told the Mail & Guardian this week: “Wherever it operates, Eni undertakes exploration activities according to the local laws and within the parameters set out by pertinent authorities and agencies, and engages in dialogue with stakeholders following locally determined norms, as well as recognised best practices.
“The environmental authorisation granted to Eni for Block ER236 confirms that the project complies with South African environmental laws and regulations.”
[/membership]