Deep Water Orange Basin (West Coast) – ONO comments on ESIA

TotalEnergies EP South Africa want to drill 10 exploration wells – Licence Block (12/3/343 ER)

This letter serves to comment on and object to the TotalEnergies EP South Africa B.V. (TEEPSA) Draft Scoping on the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and proposed public participation process for the proposed offshore production right and environmental authorisation applications for Block Deep Water Orange Basin (DWOB). It also serves to highlight numerous contentious issues with this ESIA process. Our primary concern is that there are fundamental flaws, and injustices, in the ESIA process for this application, and as such SLR have failed to comply with the ESIA requirements as set out in NEMA and the EIA Regulations, and this is evident for the following reasons:

The objection is based on the following, inter alia:

1. LACK OF AN INTEGRATED ENERGY PLAN (IEP) 

The decision to implement Section 6 of the National Energy Act (NEA) into operation with effect from 1 April 2024 has been announced by President Ramaphosa. The National Energy Act, Section 6 requires the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy to develop an Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) in the context of the current climate crisis. Without the legislative framework, this application lacks the appropriate guidelines prescribing the adoption and implementation of performance management systems relating to the global warming and international carbon commitments. Offshore exploration for fossil fuels lacks the legislative mandate to proceed whilst the IEP undergoes full public participation and consideration as per the Constitution. 

2. TIMING 

a. ONO requested a maximum, expected duration for the project from start of survey to the last possible (10^th) well drilled. This has not been forthcoming. Much mitigation for the project depends on “short-term” temporality, yet it seems that a 7 and half year duration is more realistic and therefore more impactful to fisheries, biodiversity and ocean health, making the ESIA deliberately misleading.

3. NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROJECT  
a. The ESIA has confused the direct outcomes of the DWOB exploratory project with commercial production. The exploratory wells are specifically described to be non-production wells and so will not add to the “diversification of the South African energy mix”, nor will they result in “decreased reliability (sic) on importation from other countries”. These are all potential impacts that would depend on the commercial development of the field and, as such, are beyond the parameters that were established for this ESIA. They would be suitable for an ESIA directed at the commercial exploitation of the field, however, all the other impacts would have to be assessed using the same parameters and criteria. 

b. The project will either find oil and/or gas or not, hence it has at least a 50% chance of advancing from exploration to production. Production processes must therefore be precautiously considered as sequential to exploration due to the massive potential impacts of the latter as a primary cause of global warming.

c. Leading from a., b. and c. and to address the inconsistent reasoning of this section of the ESIA: 

i. Given the already observed effects of global warming and the highly likely consequences of continued GHG emissions, the development of new oil and gas reserves is, arguably, unconstitutional. 

It is also inconsistent with South Africa’s binding commitment to the Paris Accords. 

ii. It is now widely recognized that, if atmospheric temperature is not to exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, emissions of human-caused carbon dioxide must fall by at least 45 per cent by 2030 (as compared to 2010 levels) reaching “net zero” by 2050. If  DWOB finds hydrocarbons, production will very possibly  begin only after 2030.

iii. The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative in Harmful Marine Extractives: Understanding the risks & impacts of financing non-renewable extractive industries (2022), states,

If the world is to achieve the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC’s) 1.5°C scenario, no new oil and gas production projects can be sanctioned and existing production must be significantly and urgently reduced towards full transition to sustainable renewable energy. This is the primary and most significant message of this paper.

iv. The ESIA makes much of the “dispatchability“ of offshore gas to the energy grid (despite the focus of the project being exploration and not production) however not even the Brulpadda and Luiperd finds are dispatchable yet, neither is the infrastructure to support gas-to-power ready to be engaged. Also Brulpadda and Luiperd quantities should suffice to meet the IRP gas requirements until 2050, eliminating the need and desire for further destructive exploration and the production of unburnable reserves. 

v. The ESIA presents gas as a ‘bridge technology’ but severely overlooks gas lock-in potential and related emissions, which could complicate and decelerate energy transitions as more countries reach a more advanced phase of the energy transition. In fact, using natural gas as a substitute for coal can lead to negative climate consequences due to so far underestimated life cycle emissions^[i], delay of a climate neutral energy system and lock-in of a large-scale carbon-intensive infrastructural build, which could undermine long-term climate goals.

vi. The ESIA has not defined how discovered gas will prove competitive to the energy market.

vii. The ESIA erroneously conflates by implication TotalEnergies’ oil and gas exploration with a Just Transition, 15 times. We dispute the claim that gas will, or should ,“play a major role in South Africa’s path to net-zero emissions “ without reliably establishing all relevant information about a potential fossil gas sector through a robust modelling tool. This modelling has not been conducted. 

1. Justification of the need and desirability with South African Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (5.2.10.) is misleading as this plan does not support low carbon development, as it continues support for carbon-intensive sectors like coal, oil and gas, and mining.^[i
2. Gas Master Plan Basecase Report relied upon in the ESIA also relies on various other unsubstantiated claims to argue that, inter alia, gas demand will grow and that gas has the “potential to completely change the economy by stimulating economic growth and development, stability, and job creation”. This is not supported by the facts and does not take into account any of the research conducted by independent institutions and civil society that disputes these claims.
   
   viii.As Just Share have argued, “a large portion of government planning and policy-making in relation to gas appears to be tailored towards preserving Sasol’s role in the economy, regardless of the implications for national climate commitments, human health, environmental sustainability and national competitiveness. Claims and projections made by those with vested interests must be carefully and objectively interrogated, and compared and contrasted with independent analyses”(Just Share, 2022).

d. The ESIA lists the risk of accidental release as having very high socio-economic significance, plus the fact that there are 10 opportunities for blowout in this project. This is a very serious red flag, given the project has limited social license to operate, and stands to produce paltry socio-economic benefits.

e. That the ESIA erroneously conflates TotalEnergies’ oil and gas exploration with sustainable development (p.70.), is an abuse of public trust.

It has been shown that Total (branded now TotalEnergies) “personnel received warnings of the potential for catastrophic global warming from its products by 1971, became more fully informed of the issue in the 1980s, began promoting doubt regarding the scientific basis for global warming by the late 1980s, and ultimately settled on a position in the late 1990s of publicly accepting climate science while promoting policy delay or policies peripheral to fossil fuel control.”^[iii]

This ESIA adds to TotalEnergies’ litany of denial and deflection of attention away from the wilful global endangerment by promoting fossil fuel products. 

f. This project has the potential to put the $8.5bn Just Energy Transition Partnership and future critical concessional loans, designed to support SA’s just transition from fossil fuels, at risk. 

i. Our economy is particularly vulnerable to trade-related climate change risks arising from measures aimed at transiting to low-carbon pathways considering  a) the country’s carbon-intensive energy system; b) poor energy efficiency performance; and c) the key role played by energy-intensive industries in SA’s economy.

The ESIA  has failed to adequately present the need and desirability of the project in that the Project has been represented in a biased manner that deprives stakeholders and decision-makers in South Africa from understanding the full dimensions of the Project and the implications thereof. 

4. NO-GO ALTERNATIVE REMAINS UNCONSIDERED
a. The authors of the ESIA do not indicate that the parameters used to make the assessment (i.e. the time frame and assumption of commercial development of the field) in the ESIA nor do they provide any justification for the different criteria used to assess the environmental and other impacts vs that of the no-go alternative. This sudden shift in the assessment criteria makes the ESIA unreliable. 

An honest, realistic assessment of the No- Go Alternative would only look at the impacts of the exploratory drilling project which the ESIA already describes as having a minimal impact on employment (almost no local jobs will be created during this phase) and no impact on the energy mix or reliance of SA on imported hydrocarbons. 

b. If the purpose of the DWOB project is in establishing the location of gas reserves and producing exploratory wells once found, the No-Go alternative should have included greater consideration of renewable energy alternatives to generate energy and provide energy feedstocks for industrial applications.

c. The ESIA has inadequately considered the no-go option in that it has only dealt with the potentially negative economic impacts thereof. This is a biased and one-sided approach, particularly when the no-go alternative will ensure no pollution, no catastrophic spill, no climate impact, no impact on fisheries, no socio-economic impact, no increased violent conflict and militarization, no human rights abuses and no harm to the marine environment associated with offshore oil and gas exploitation. 

d. The ESIA did not properly consider representations from I&APs that proceeding with fossil fuel exploration is a blatant violation of the Paris Agreement signed by the South African government and goes against what the best available climate science recommends, namely limiting hydrocarbon energy options to create a sustainable, resilient and equitable future for all; and did not consider alternatives, in particular the “no-go option”, being the abandonment of the project entirely and developing renewable energy sources in the interests of effective mitigation of climate change. 

Three offshore oil and gas related court cases to date, have taken the ministers ( DMRE and DFFE) and developers to court to demand the minister engage the ‘no-go’ option to stop development before it starts. The applicants represent a large number of communities and organisation and they span South Africa’s coastline (North East, East and West Coasts):

i.South Durban Community Environmental Alliance et al. V Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries & Others, (2021, June 14) Case No. 29433/21 in the High Court of South Africa Gauteng Division, Pretoria; https://drive.google.com/file/d/12loY5RLGd0CGRoMrc2pn7kt4yohkCWxS/view

ii. Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others vs. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others.(2021, December 28) Case No. 3491/2021 in the High Court of South Africa Eastern Cape Division, Makhanda/Grahamstown. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SWC-v-Shell-Wild-Coast-Seismic-Blasting-Interdict-28.12.2021.pdf  

iii. Christian John Adams & Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others. (2022, March1) Case No. 1306/22 in the High Court of South Africa Western Cape Division, Cape Town. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Adams-and-Others-v-Minister-of-Mineral-Resources-and-Energy-and-Others-ZAWCHC-24.pdf   

5. NO COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Considering the social impacts of a spill reaching the coast is considered to be of very high magnitude and very high significance, insufficient attention has been given to full-cost accounting. A failure of the ESIA is that there has been no Cost Benefit Analysis or a Strategic Environmental Analysis. 

a. The ESIA promotes the assumed “benefits” of the project, instead of appraising the full ecological and socio-economic cost, including hazard and externality costs, and evaluating whether there is a need for this project in the context of this total cost. 

b. The ESIA should also have assessed the social and economic costs resulting from a major oil spill arising from an uncontrolled wellhead blow-out. The consequences of a blowout, or accidental release, of oil and/or gas (or associated materials), to the tourism, fisheries and recreational industries have not been properly considered especially in the light of compensation for loss of income. At the very least the implications of the surrounding MPAs, CBAs and EBSAs on the sustainability of the ocean and coastal fisheries should be explored.

c. That this project has the potential to exclude or reduce catch rates for large pelagic longline fisheries and small scale fishers for years could prove catastrophic for some of them. These fisheries spend most of their time at sea searching for fish with actual fishing events taking place over a relatively short period of time. These fisheries will be severely disadvantaged being unable to work in their operational areas. The significance of impact of both cumulative effects and extended duration should be considered high and compensation for loss of income must be established through a Cost Benefit Analysis.

d. The ESIA assures the decision-maker that TEEPSA ensure that damages and compensation to Third-Parties are included in insurance cover to financially manage the consequences of any unplanned event, but says that “In the event of an unplanned event (i.e. such as a well blow-out) occurring, a process of determining the economic effects and related compensation would be initiated” (p.77). Without a cost-benefit analysis, the compensation amount used for insurances purposes is therefore unreliable.

6. DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE RESOURCES NOT RECOGNISED BY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

a. It has been made clear in previous cases and in the CHIA that there is opposition to the project. In the Christian John Adams & Others (13 applicants) v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others. (2022, March 1) court interdict to halt the first proposed 2D and 3D surveys, and other articulations of dissent, small-scale fishers & associations, civil society and the public have protested against offshore oil and gas operations. ESIA rhetoric has served unjustly as a rationale for halting livelihoods in times of economic difficulty and impacting their marine-related intangible cultural heritage. The effects to their intangible heritage and relation to the sea remain, whether impacts occur close or far from shore.

b. The proposal for mitigation of the polluting activities of offshore oil and gas are recommended as, “ritual event/s of regional and national significance implemented to permit engagement with ancestral spirits and the spirit of the sea itself – as there are many communities that believe in the agency of the sea and in its existence as a living organism. These actions may alleviate the potential and future negative impacts of non-consultation and poor cultural respect.”p.60

c. This is recommendation is simplistic, reductive and grossly  inconsistent with the degree of significance of, and makes a mockery of, spiritual and cosmological value that the sea holds for coastal, fisher, indigenous and First People communities. This poorly defined approach used by the heritage specialist limits the ability of authorities to make informed decisions by making no distinction between quantitative and qualitative inputs.

7. OIL SPILL MODELLING

a. It cannot be discounted that the greatest threat to the environment from offshore oil and gas operations is an unplanned, major oil spill occurring a result from the loss of well control (or blow-out). The impacts of oil on marine fauna and marine ecosystems are documented globally. However, the consequences and impacts of an event such as this to the people of South Africa does not come across in the ESIA report. 

b. It continues to be repeated that deep water horizon would never happen again. Deep wate horizon occurred because of the blasé attitude towards the risk of an unplanned event. The oil spill modelling is only modelled for 20 days of release, this should have been extended for the full 60 days and the 60 day should be 120 days, extrapolating on HES same ratio. The modelling of only 20 days throws doubt on HES confidance in their modelling for such an extended and more realistic period

c. In a different model, Feron et al 2023^[iv], they estimate a much larger surface area expected to be impacted, which is likely due to the use of different ecological thresholds (1 μm vs 10 μm), and an extremely high biodegradation rate applied in the HES model, making their modeled oil far less persistent and less sensitive. 

d. It appears that the wind data used is from Cape Town Airport or Cape Agulhas as a validation check, but how could this be appropriate to the DWOB area, given its distance from the area, surely there are regional and local variability in winds on the West Coast?

e. Looking at a basic long terms wind rose for Port Nolloth shows that NW-WNW winds are frequent. The model did not take this into account? Surely this would have a major impact of the oil slick movement? 

f. Is does not appear that wind-forcing in non-dominant winds have been considered. 

g. What would the effect of stratification or mixing within the water column be after a cold front where mixing and more turbulence is expected? 

h. It appears the bottom currents in the Morholtz study of 2008^[v] have not been considered. Their study shows that both the meridional and the cross-shelf circulation undergo a distinct seasonal cycle, in both summer and winter. Please can the currents in the study incorporate these findings?

i. Its seems that the water column considerations used in the modelling for plume trajectory scenarios are based on near-bottom and near-surface currents. How does the oil behave in the mid-layer contamination?

j. There is reference to the current frequency at the “layer before seabed” but it is unclear what the actual depths these are at? Is near in this context very close as in centimetres or meters above the sea bed?

k.It does not appear that the model has taken swell into consideration in the plume movement?

l. The HES model considers that dispersants will be applied to help mitigate the impact of the spill. They assume that a Subsea Dispersant Injection Kit (SSDI) will be deployed after the 15th day, as well as surface dispersion with 2 aircraft for chemical dispersion operations, 10 vessels for chemical dispersion operations and 5 pairs of vessels for containment and recovery operations. It is highly unlikely all these measures (2 aircraft and 20 vessels) will be able to be deployed in time to prevent the oil from reaching sensitive biodiversity, MPAs and important fishery areas in time. Mobilization of these vessels and aircraft are presumed to be immediate. This simply can’t be guaranteed. Please make the necessary models that take the worst case scenario into account.

8. OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN 

a.The ESIA makes no mention of mitigation or contingency plans in the event of a fire or explosions. The Chevron Nigeria Limited explosion of January 2012  and the Gunashli oilfield disaster of December 2015 are indicators of the dire need for proper mitigation planning. 

b.No choices for dispersant use have been provided. Neither has the ESIA provided an explanation of their chemical components, toxicity, potential for bioaccumulation, ecological impacts through the water column and on the shoreline.

The most appropriate dispersants must be listed. An explanation of their chemical components, toxicity, and potential for bioaccumulation, ecological impacts through the water column and on the shoreline, and their specific function must be also provided.

c. The ESIA must provide an Assessment of Onshore Environment and Mitigation in case of predicted oil pollution touching the coast near the border. Buried oil contaminants can resurface as the beach erodes. Buried oil must be removed through mechanical excavation. The ESIA needs detailed modelling of cross-shore distribution of oil contaminants relating to beach morphodynamic terminology to help optimize beach clean-up planning.

9. NOISE EMISSIONS

a. Key findings and modelling must be projected for the full length of the proposed project. Timings remain ambiguous and unhelpful– “duration of operation” is the catch-all phrase and doesn’t take into consideration the possibility of 10 sets of drilling well operations with their companion VSP operations etc. 

b. Wells can take as long as a year to complete. It is disingenuous to suggest that the worst-case is a 24 hours continuous exposure duration. Please create realistic models.

c. The ESIA notes that relatively high to moderate behavioural risks are expected for fish species at intermediate distances from the source location. The major spawning areas, as well as egg and larval drift pathways of commercially important species, such as hake, pilchards, horse mackerel and anchovy lie inshore of the Area of Interest for drilling and are unlikely to be impacted by the behavioural disturbance zone. The ESIA is unclear what mitigation is being undertaken for pelagic fish and sharks. 

d. In the ESIA, it is noted that animals only pass through the site near the noise sources in a very short period of time, their noise exposure is not expected to exceed PTS-onset thresholds. The ESIA also notes many cetacean species being resident year-round in the area, so it cannot be assumed that they will only be there for a very short period of time. The ESIA has not considered impacts or mitigation for these animals if they are present in these areas for more than a “very short period of time”, where the impact for these cetaceans would be of high intensity, duration and magnitude. 

e.The ESIA notes that if TTS is to occur, it would be at close range for sea turtles and fish species which lack swim bladders. The non-impulsive drilling noise is predicted to have low physiological impacts on fish and sea turtle species with no cumulative impacts being predicted for fish, but PTS onset for turtles over 24 hours is predicted to occur within 30 m of the drilling location. The onset of PTS (especially for those animals that are subsurface) is of significant risk to turtles.

f. Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) is an evaluation tool that is used to generate a high-resolution seismic image of the geology in the well’s immediate vicinity. VSP uses a small airgun array, which is operated from the drilling unit. During VSP operations, receivers are positioned in a section of the borehole and the airgun array is discharged at intervals. This process is repeated for different stations in the well and may take up to nine hours to complete. The frequency of the VSP appears to be missing in the ESIA. 

g. The AOI is extremely close, (acoustically 25km is close) to the Tripp Seamount, where whales are known to occur, these cetaceans, which rely on acoustics may be affected by the vessel and drilling noise. Cross-border mitigation is not considered, and neither are any agreements with Namibia.

h. Please indicate how precautionary protocols to limit the disruption of rest will be established for the extended period of this project. Perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of anthropogenic noise impacts is the ‘disruption of rest periods’, which are important to migrating, or even generally moving, marine animals. Significant stress due to prolonged exposure to seismic and anthropogenic underwater noise has been measured in a number of species^[vi],^[vii]. These studies indicate cumulative effects could result in metabolic maladaptation, suppressing growth, immune system function, thermoregulation and the reduction of reproductive rates, with implications for individual and population fitness. Chronic problems of this kind are a legitimate conservation concern. 

i. Cumulative acoustic limits should be established, since there is a very real risk of displacement from feeding or breeding areas which could have far-reaching effects not only for whole, and vulnerable, animal populations, but also on the fishing sector and our food security. These limits should be appropriately matched to the spatiotemporal scale and exposure rate of the risks to individuals and populations. Measurement of noise budget, such as those under consideration under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive[viii], should lead to limits on the source levels that are introduced on a regional scale.

j. The adverse effect of continuous noise exposure may intensify and last for a considerable time after the termination of the sound source, however neither stress nor maladaptive neuroplastic changes within the central auditory pathway symptomatic of noise exposure induced tinnitus in marine animals are broached.

k. South Africa is a signatory to a resolution passed at the 67th International Whaling Commission (IWC) 2018 for the elimination of acoustic pollution that affects whales (of all 13 species and populations considered under the IWC), and therefore has a duty to cooperate. Please explain how South Africa can fulfil this duty given that this project may take up to 7 and half years to complete (TBC) and will create significant disturbance for an extended period for protected and unprotected species. 

l. Please clarify whether the sonar surveys will take 4 weeks for the entire project (all 10 wells) or whether they’ll operate be 4 weeks per well?

m. Please include seabed coring in your noise modelling.

n. Please include the decibel attenuation for the Vertical Seismic Profiling.

o. What alternatives to Vertical Seismic Profiling have been investigated?

p. Please establish cumulative acoustics limits for relevant species for the following:

i. Multi beam echo-sounder (70-100 kHz) 
ii. Single beam echo-sounder (38-200 kHz) 
iii. Sub-bottom profiler (2-16 kHz) 
iv. Vertical Seismic Profiling (please confirm the relevant Hz range)
v. Sea bed coring
vi. Noise from the rig
vi.Noise from the many vessels operating simultaneously

q. Please indicate when these operations may run concurrently while drilling for eg., including across all wells.

r. Key findings and modelling must be projected for the full length of the proposed operation.

s. What international operational guidelines will be followed for mitigation of noise during this operation?

t.Please assess the full scale of this acoustic footprint including impacts caused by vibration through drill string and casing, vibration into the seabed, vibration of drill bit.

u. Please indicate how precautionary protocols will be established in areas of steep bathymetry close to seismic surveys and multibeam bathymetric sonar. Ocean depth, multibeam echo sounders sweep a swath up to 7.4 times water depth and so affect a wide area. Potential impacts on marine mammals may range from physical damage, including gross damage to ears and the ‘bends’, temporary and permanent threshold shift (deafness), to perceptual (masking biologically significant noises) and behavioural impacts (temporary or permanent displacement and stress) as well as indirect effects (reduced prey availability)[ix]. High intensity, low and mid-frequency sonar has been implicated in some fatal strandings[x].

v. Please assess the various technologies available for detecting marine animals in low-visibility conditions. Technologies that need to be explored include, active acoustic monitoring (AAM), radio detection and ranging (RADAR), light detection and ranging (LIDAR), satellite, and spectral camera systems, especially infrared (IR).

w. The use of airguns in a marine environment requires mitigation and no seismic activities should take place during the known breeding and migration periods of cetaceans and turtles.

i. Please indicate how this will be mitigated.

Any operation of seismic surveys, vertical seismic surveys, Sonar surveys and bathymetric surveys happening concurrently must be taken into consideration with cumulative impacts assessed.

i. Please provide assessment of cumulative impacts.

10. OPERATIONAL WASTE – TOXICITY, RADIOACTIVITY & POLLUTION

a. Global literature cites that discharges at similar depths may produce cuttings accumulations of up to 20m thickness within 100–500m of the well site and gradually get thinner away from the wellhead^[xi]. 

b. The Drill Cutting Discharge Modelling acknowledges that marine ecology is required to understand the impacts of these discharges, but overall it fails to explain the environmental effects and impacts, of the processes such as smothering. 

c. Please advise if drill cuttings’ offshore treatment and discharge to sea are assessed in terms of impact on seafloor/ benthic community, water column biology and expected dispersion?

d. Cognisance must be taken of the hazards of drill cuttings disposal onto the seabed (after cleaning) because they are often contaminated with drilling lubricants, synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBFs) and other non-aqueous drilling fluids (NAFs). 

e. Please outline what mitigation measures will be used against sediments contaminated with petroleum products, heavy metals and salts, which do not biodegrade and can accumulate in high concentrations affecting reproduction of marine life, and biomagnify toxic substances in the food chain.

f. Please provide a detailed report, describing the compound ingredients, levels of expected toxicity and radioactivity of the lubricants used, and their effects to species (including human), including larval stages.

g. Furthermore, please provide an explanation as to how these toxins will be mitigated during fish spawning periods where necessary.

h. How and where in the water column will drill cuttings discharge to sea be dispersed?

i. A detailed composition of these emissions and effluents regarding their toxicity, biodegradation, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon content and their metal content, need to be made public/ described in the ESIA.

j. What assurances are there that drill cuttings will be treated to reduce oil content before disposal over board? 

k. Will the NADFs be oil based or synthetic? Please describe their classification.

l. Offshore thermal desorption offers an alternative method to treat drilled cuttings offshore and reduce the oil concentration on cuttings to typically less than 0.5% by weight prior to marine discharge. Is this a method being considered?

m. The Drilling Discharges Modelling Study must evaluate the contamination by not only Kgs of Non-aqueous Drilling Muds per well, but also model for the risk of the cumulative exposure to toxic and non-toxic stressors (dissolution of the chemicals, transport and deposition of particles, biodegradation, attachment of chemicals to particles, and eventually formation of agglomerated particles), and the fates of the discharge compounds in the sediment (e.g., concentrations and biodegradation in the sediment, bioturbation, equilibrium partitioning for organic chemicals and heavy metals, oxygen content in the porewater, change of grain size, and burial) from the tonnes of discharge from 10 wells. 

n. Please advise as to which actual licenced waste contractor will be used for disposing of volumes of NADF remaining from the project. It is in the public interest to know the name of the contractor should the option be employed.

o. Please advise as to which actual licenced radioactive waste contractor will be used for disposing hazardous wastes from the project, for the same reasons as above.

p. Radioactive sources may be used for certain types of data acquisition. Please identify, and declare the half life/rate of radioactive decay, of the radioactive sources. 

q. Please identify the exact methods to be used for the treatment and also disposal of toxic radioactive drill wastes, frack flowback, drill mud, all radioactive substances and related tools, instruments used in the usage of any radioactive materials.

r. Please identify the exact methods for the treatment and disposal of the drill mud if onshore.

s. Please advise as to how and where toxic and also radioactive wastes are to be treated and disposed of, and in what municipalities?

t. How will compliance to international standards for the handling, storage, disposal etc. of radioactive substances be managed?

u. Total Energies and Shell have endorsed the Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 (Shell ZRF by 2025) initiative launched by the World Bank and the United Nations in 2015 for new field development, so what consequence does this hold for this operation?

v. Please give a realistic determination of the volume of gas to be flared per test, its emissions quantity and concentration, and expand estimates given that there may be up to ten wells in total. 

w. What carbon budget has been allocated by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment for this project? 

x. Has a greenhouse gas mitigation plan been prepared and submitted to the Minister for approval?

11. MARINE PROTECTED AREAS (MPAS), ECOLOGICALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (EBSAS), CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS (CBAS) AND VULNERABLE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS (VMES)

a. The Block is far removed from coastal MPAs and any sensitive coastal receptors such as  breeding/feeding areas, bird or seal colonies and nursery areas for commercial fish stocks, are expected not to be affected. There is also no direct overlap of the AOI with proposed EBSAs, while the Orange Shelf Edge MPA is located ~12 km north of the AOI, whereas the Orange Seamount and Canyon Complex EBSA borders on the northern side of the AOI. The AOI also does not overlap with identified CBA areas. Although the AOI doesn’t overlap directly with these areas, are which have been specially identified for their unique biodiversity and critical conservation functions, they are definitely impacted by noise emissions, and plumes of suspended material, and in the event of oil dispersion during a blow-out. Further to this, it is ignorant to suggest the AOI does not overlap with the CBA areas given that the DWOB Block was specifically included avoided for conservation planning during the marine spatial planning process.

b. The ESIA note that sampling beyond 1 000 m depth has not taken place in South Africa^[xii]. The benthic communities within the Block are completely unknown. Given the location of the Block, the possibility of this area hosting Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems can’t be discounted given our lack of knowledge of our abyssal areas in the EEZ.

Species 

Cetaceans

Increased offshore anthropogenic activities, such as offshore mining, are likely to generate additional energy costs to migrating humpback whale populations^[xiii]. Therefore, energy related to reproduction would be jeopardized because the demand for energy would be funnelled into other related survival activities such as having to travel greater distances to avoid an area and changing swimming speeds. While local disturbances to behaviour may be minor, the costs of repeated disruptions may accumulate over a long journey (such as a migration) and thus collectively have a major impact on the energy stores of the whales. Given the historical anthropogenic pressure (whaling) on the Humpback whale population and its recent population comeback, it is a concern that exploration will be occurring in their direct migration channels, thus disturbing and changing the behaviour of the population, at an unknown cost.  

Turtles

Although the five species of turtles in South Africa and largely known to be found around the coast with some published satellite tag data showing their long migrations offshore, the ESIA suggests that they seldom occur west of Cape Agulhas^[xiv],^[xv]. More recently, unpublished data from two South African aquariums have shown that St Helena Bay and Groen River mouth area are popular turtle areas (upto 200m offshore).

Seals

The ESIA does not take into account the foraging areas of seals, according to Shaughnessy (1979)^[xvi] seals have been recorded up to 120 nautical miles offshore. 

Birds

a. Many pelagic bird species, many are protected or threatened species, are known to occur at their highest densities offshore of the shelf break, and therefore are likely to occur within the proposed AOI. In the event of operational spills and minor spills, the risk of oiling to these birds is elevated. These types of spills have not been addressed in the ESIA.

b. The closest breeding islands to the DWOB Licence Block are Bird Island in Lambert’s Bay, the Saldanha Bay islands, Dassen Island. Approximately 15 species breed in southern Africa, including Cape Gannet, African Penguin, African Black Oystercatcher, various Cormorants, White Pelicans, Gulls and Terns. All of the colonies are south of the AOI, ad according to the ESIA, oil spil model, would not be impacted by oil spill scenario which are modelled on South East winds. However, should a spill occur during NW winds, these colonies populations could be affected. 

c. Although the ESIA acknowledges that bird populations have “highest sensitivities to unplanned events”, the risk to these pelagic bird populations in the event of a blow-out still remains, despite the standard mitigations. 

d. Any oil spilled in the marine environment would, have an immediate detrimental effect on water quality, with the toxic effects potentially resulting in the mortality of various marine animals and /or affecting animals and ecosystem health. Not to mention, a large oil slick would influence fishing operations, both commercial, small scale and recreational, and oil reaching the shore would be devastating on the coastal ecology and coastal communities. In the event of a large oil spill, assuming the worst-case scenario of coastal oiling, the residual impact on marine and coastal ecology and nearshore users will be of VERY HIGH significance. The residual impact on offshore fishing would be of HIGH significance. It is unclear why this risk out-weighs the need and desirability of this project.

e. The ESIA mentions for mitigation that all efforts should be made by TEEPSA to avoid scheduling drilling operations during the periods when the likelihood of shoreline oiling for a blow-out is highest (namely the Austral Winter). This recommendation is well-intentioned but the cold fronts can pass through the Block area at anytime from late March / early April until September, as meteorologists have seen in recent years. In addition, if drilling is delayed and it continues well into summer, then how can this be suggested as ‘mitigation’, given the timeline for drilling a single well is 3-4 months? 

12. EXPLOSIVE USE

The ESIA mentions that if required the use of explosives will be undertaken during drilling if required.

a. Furthermore, what mitigation will be in place during explosions given the extremely high risk to marine fauna in the use of explosives. 

13. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Despite the lengthy duration of this process, at no time has TotalEnergies requested to undertake any Biological Baseline studies to satisfy the concerns raised by various stakeholders in the various application leading up to this application. There remains little information or knowledge of the deep offshore marine environment in the Areas of Interest, and therefore there is still no actual benthic data of what exploration drilling could potentially impact upon in terms of biodiversity. Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys to seek a suitable location for the pipelines and wellheads but these surveys simply cannot be deemed as a baseline survey (MPRDA Reg 49(1) (scoping) and Reg 50 (EIA)). 

For all the reasons stated above, it is our request that the proposed exploration does not proceed. 

---

^[i]  R.W. Howarth, A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas, Energy Sci. 2 (2014) 47–60, https://doi.org/10.1002/ ese3.35. 

^[ii] Climate Action Tracker. (2020).South Africa 2020. Climate Action Tracker.  https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/south-africa/.

^[iii] Bonneuil, C., Choquet, P. L., & Franta, B. (2021). Early warnings and emerging accountability: Total’s responses to global warming, 1971–2021. Global Environmental Change, 71, 102386.

^[iv] Feron, G, Laing, R., Bracco, A., D. Reich. 2023. An oil spill model for South African waters, trajectory and fate analysis of deepwater blowout spill Scenarios. A report for the WILDTRUST, 64pp.

^[v] Mohrholz, V., Bartholomae, C. H., van der Plas, A. K., & Lass, H. U. (2008). The seasonal variability of the northern Benguela undercurrent and its relation to the oxygen budget on the shelf. Continental Shelf Research, 28(3), 424–441. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2007.10.001

^[vi] Gordon, J.C.D., Gillespie, D., Potter, J., Frantiz, A., Simmonds, M.P. and Swift, R. (1998). The effects of seismic surveys on marine mammal. In Tasker M.L., and Weir, C. (editors) Proceedings of the seismic and marine mammals workshop.

^[vii] Finneran, J. J., Schlundt, C. E., Dear, R., Carder, D. A., and Ridgway, S. H. 2002b. “Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds . MTTS in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic watergun,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 2929–2940.

^[viii] Tasker, M. L., Amundin, M., Andre, M., Hawkins, A., Lang, W., Merck, T., … & Zakharia, M. (2010). MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE Task Group 11 Report Underwater noise and other forms of energy. Report No. EUR, 24341, 2010.

^[ix] Gordon, Jonathan & Gillespie, Douglas & Potter, John & Frantzis, Alexandros & Simmonds, Mark & Swift, René & Thompson, David. (2003). A Review of The Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal. 37. 16-34. 10.4031/002533203787536998.

^[x] Frantzis, Alexandros. (2004). The first mass stranding that was associated with the use of active sonar (Kyparissiakos Gulf, Greece, 1996). ECS Newsletter. 42.

^[xi] Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R. & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Clim. Change106, 679–690.

^[xii] Atkinson L.J. and Sink K.J. 2018. (eds) Field Guide to the Offshore Marine Invertebrates of South Africa, Malachite Marketing and Media, Pretoria, pp. 393-476. DOI: 10.15493/SAEON.

^[xiii] Braithwaite, J.E., Meeuwig, J.J., Hipsey, M.R. (2015). Optimal migration energetics of humpback whales and the implications of disturbance. Conservation Physiology 3: doi:10.1093/conphys/cov001.

^[xiv] Harris, L.R., Nel, R., Oosthuizen, H., Meyer, M., Kotze, D., Anders, D., McCue, S. & S. Bachoo, 2018. Managing conflict between economic activities and threatened migratory species toward creating a multiobjective blue economy. Conservation Biology, 32(2): 411-423

^[xv] Robinson, N., Anders, D., Bachoo, S., Harris, L., Hughes, G., Kotze, D., Maduray, S., McCue, S., Meyer, M., Oosthuizen, H., Paladino, F. & P. Luschi, 2019. Satellite tracking of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles on the southeast African coastline. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter, 28: 5pp.

^[xvi] Shaughnessy, P. D. 1979 — Cape (South African) fur seal. In Mammals in the Seas. F.A.O. Fish. Ser. 5 2: 37–40.