The promise of a new domestic source of natural gas is colliding with growing concerns over water security and South Africa’s climate commitments as Thungela Resources advances plans for a large-scale coal bed methane project in Limpopo’s Waterberg.
The mining company has applied for environmental authorisation for the first phase of its proposed Lephalale coal bed methane project, which would involve drilling 333 production wells, constructing underground gas pipelines and building a liquefied natural gas processing facility.
According to the project’s scoping report, the broader production-right area spans about 134 155 hectares across 224 farm portions, while the first phase under environmental assessment would be developed within a smaller footprint near Marapong and Onverwacht.
Thungela said the project was intended to provide a domestic source of natural gas that could reduce reliance on higher-emission fuels and imported energy while strengthening South Africa’s energy security during the transition to a lower-carbon economy.
It added that the project was “backed by more than 20 years of scientific and environmental research and should be viewed as part of the country’s energy transition”.
“The project is designed as a transitional energy initiative that supports the growth of renewables by providing flexible, lower-carbon supply during the shift to a decarbonised system,” the company said, noting that it “supports a stable transition and does not displace renewable energy”.
Environmental groups argue the proposal cannot be assessed in isolation. They say it forms part of the continued industrialisation of Lephalale, a region dominated by coal mining and coal-fired power generation.
“For years, people in Lephalale have lived in the shadow of the region’s coal mines and power stations, enduring severe air pollution, land degradation and growing pressure on already scarce water resources,” said Thabo Sibeko, the senior programmes officer at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg.
Responding to concerns about groundwater, Thungela said water protection was a central component of the project's design. All water use, treatment and discharge would be regulated under environmental and water legislation and supported by continuous monitoring throughout the project’s lifespan.
Coal bed methane is a form of natural gas trapped inside underground coal seams. Rather than mining the coal itself, wells are drilled into the seams to release the methane, which is then collected, processed and used as fuel.
The company said the hydraulic stimulation proposed for the coal seams differed from conventional deep-well hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) because it was shallower and used significantly lower pressures and volumes.
All substances used would be disclosed to the relevant authorities, with further technical details to be provided during the environmental impact assessment process.
On climate concerns, Thungela said the project would incorporate engineered gas-capture systems to minimise fugitive methane emissions and use continuous monitoring and leak-detection protocols. It said methane emissions would be measured and reported in line with regulatory requirements and the company's climate-reporting commitments.
Sibeko described Lephalale as an environmental “sacrifice zone”, arguing that communities had long carried the environmental and health costs of South Africa's energy infrastructure.
“Medupi and Exxaro are already operational in the region. These projects are regarded as offering economic sustainability but their detrimental impact on the environment and on human health cannot be measured against the livelihoods of the people of Lephalale,” he said.
One of the greatest concerns surrounding the proposed coal bed methane project was its cumulative impact on water resources, he said.
“The project will drill more than 300 methane wells, tampering with underground water. People in Lephalale already depend on boreholes for their daily water needs and this project could exacerbate an already water-stressed situation.”
Civil society organisations have also questioned the public participation process, arguing that meetings were not easily accessible to affected communities and that language barriers may have prevented many residents from fully understanding the proposal.
Margaret Mokoka from Hands of Hope, a grassroots non-profit organisation in Lephalale, said people deserved the opportunity to understand what was being proposed “in their own backyard” before decisions were made.
“If meetings are held far from where we live, how are people supposed to attend? And if the information is presented in a language many people struggle to follow, how meaningful can their participation be?” she asked.
Earthlife Africa and other community organisations have called for an extension of the public comment period, which closed last week, arguing that affected residents needed more time and better access to information to meaningfully participate in the environmental assessment process.
The civil society organisations argued that the environmental assessment should fully consider cumulative impacts on water resources, biodiversity, climate and nearby communities before any decision was taken.
Thungela noted that the project would create employment opportunities in drilling, operations, logistics and associated services, with a focus on local hiring and supplier development. It said further details on the commitments would be provided as the project moved through the regulatory process.