TotalEnergies SA’s proposed project ‘may drill the deepest offshore well in the world’
Environmental justice organisations The Green Connection and Natural Justice are opposing a proposal by TotalEnergies EP South Africa to drill what could be the world’s deepest offshore well, off the West Coast.
TotalEnergies plans to conduct offshore exploration drilling for oil and gas in the southern part of block Deep Water Orange Basin (DWOB). The area in which it wants to explore for oil and gas covers 15 000 square kilometres.
Over a three-year period, up to seven wells will be drilled in the ocean, with each taking between three to four months to drill. Drilling will happen about 200km from the shore, in very deep water between 500m and 3 900m.
“If approved, this would mean drilling at depths of nearly 3 900m, only 211km off the coast of Saldanha — home to many indigenous small-scale fisher families,” said Liziwe McDaid, strategic lead of The Green Connection. “It would be reckless to put their livelihoods and our marine heritage at risk.”
McDaid said that the draft environmental and social impact assessment report had revealed serious governance failures. “What is particularly concerning is how the report downplays the risk of catastrophic oil spills and makes unsubstantiated claims that a blow-out could be capped in just 20 days, while experts warn it could take months at these depths.”
She warned that a spill of that scale could devastate fisheries and wipe out tourism jobs and could even spread into Namibian waters, adding that the project could unnecessarily put people’s culture, the ocean and climate action at risk, if it went ahead.
“The DWOB South exploratory drilling project is both exceptional and unprecedented,” the two non-profits said in their detailed critique of the draft report. “If granted, the environmental authorisation will authorise drilling in waters up to 3 900m deep. If allowed to proceed, the proposed project may drill the deepest offshore well in the world.”
Drilling at this depth has never taken place before yet this is not disclosed in the draft report. “The deep sea below 2 500m is in perpetual darkness, has water temperatures consistently below 5°C and pressures greater than 250 atm [atmospheres]. Because of these extreme conditions, drilling in ultra-deep waters is inherently risky.”
The groups argued, however, that the draft report does not discuss the likelihood of encountering a high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) formation, such as the one involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the largest marine oil spill in history.
“Since HPHT drilling projects are more dangerous and require more specialised equipment, the [draft report] should provide data to support why the operator is confident that an HPHT reservoir will not be encountered”.
They described the 20-day estimate to cap a blow-out as “unsupported and far from worst-case”.
The groups noted that the draft report indicates that the 20-day spill response duration is based on its plan to use a capping stack located at the Oil Spill Response Limited facility in Saldanha Bay to contain the spill in the event of a well blow-out.
“However, the capping stack in Saldanha Bay is only officially rated for pressures of 10 000 psi [pounds per square inch] and waters up to 3 000m deep; 15 000 psi-rated capping stacks are considered standard for ultra-deepwater wells.”
For this reason, they said, the draft report has failed to explain how the capping stack in Saldanha is sufficient to contain a well blow-out for the proposed project.
“Nor has it identified a capping stack that has been officially approved for use at up to 3 900m depths, much less explained how such a stack could be successfully transported and installed within 20 days … It took 87 days for BP to cap the Deepwater Horizon well that occurred at a water depth of 1 600m and 74 days to stop the spill at Montara at only 76m water depth.
“While technology has improved, a reduction in capping time by more than four times is unsupported, and does not account for possible long delays from bad weather and rough seas that commonly occur in winter in the area. These poor weather conditions could feasibly last for longer than 20 days.”
In response to these criticisms, TotalEnergies EP South Africa spokesperson Sibu Duma said: “Firstly, exploration blocks cover a range of water depths and at the time of conducting an ESIA [environmental and social impact assessment report], the exact well locations and thus final water depths are not yet determined.
“The Block DWOB ESIA process is ongoing and all relevant public participation processes will be carried out in accordance with legislative requirements.”
McDaid said the draft report “appears to perpetuate injustice” against marginalised communities because of poor consultation and lack of accessible information. Many fishing communities reported they were excluded from public meetings because of their locations or were given limited engagement.
“Crucial baseline data was not shared in accessible formats,” she said. “This may undermine people’s constitutional rights, especially since this is yet another project that could lock South Africa into a costly, carbon-heavy path wholly at odds with climate science and the country’s just transition commitments.”
The groups said in their written comments that the social impact assessment further downplays risks to fishers, claiming drilling sites are “far offshore” and fishing activity is limited.
“Yet migratory fish stocks, seasonal fishing patterns, and cumulative displacement from multiple offshore concessions are ignored. Small-scale fishers, already vulnerable, face reduced access, increased costs and risks of contamination, none of which are quantified.
“To dismiss potential impacts by saying that ‘under normal operations’ fisherfolk are ‘unlikely to venture more than 30km from the coastline’ is deliberately obtuse and purposefully ignoring impacts on migratory fish stocks.”
They noted that some communities’ livelihoods are wholly dependent on what fish are caught each day, and if exploration activities result in an oil spill and they cannot fish, their catch is radically reduced — “resulting in destruction of livelihoods with no alternative means of supporting their families”.
McDaid said the draft report inflates the project’s economic benefits while failing to explain that most skilled jobs will probably go to foreign contractors. Local people might only receive temporary, low-paid work, while coastal fishing and tourism — proven, sustainable drivers of jobs and GDP — could be severely harmed.
The organisations also emphasise that impacts on marine biodiversity are “barely assessed”, even though the deep ocean plays a critical role in regulating the climate and sustaining fisheries.
Noise pollution is “similarly dismissed”, with little consideration of how drilling noise could disorient whales, displace fish from feeding grounds and threaten endangered species such as leatherback turtles and seabirds. Helicopter flights between rigs and the mainland could disturb nesting seabirds, yet these risks are rated as “low” or “very low” significance.
The report also fails to consider the cumulative impacts of multiple exploration and drilling projects already underway in South African and Namibian waters. Treating each project in isolation is, the NGOs warn, like “approving multiple factories to discharge into the same river while claiming each has ‘minimal impact’.”
“The law is clear,” said Shahil Singh, legal adviser for The Green Connection. “Environmental impact assessments must consider the full lifecycle of a fossil fuel project, not just the exploration phase.”
By failing to properly address this, the report “could mislead the public into thinking exploration is harmless, when in reality it is often the first step towards large-scale oil and gas extraction”.
Singh pointed to the recent Western Cape High Court judgment, which ruled in favour of the Green Connection and Natural Justice when it set aside the government’s decision to grant environmental authorisation for offshore drilling along the south-west coast. He noted that it confirmed that “weak and incomplete assessments” will not stand up in court.
The organisations said they rejected the notion of gas as a “transition fuel”, stressing that methane, which leaks throughout the gas production cycle, is more than 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a 20-year period.
McDaid said that expanding gas infrastructure would lock South Africa into higher energy costs and increased dependence on volatile global markets.
Duma added that, as a responsible operator, “TotalEnergies is committed to fully respecting the regulations and engaging transparently with all stakeholders and puts sustainability at the heart of its projects and operations.”