Not so Well, Well, Well, Well, Well, Well, Well

ONO RESPONDS TO TEEPSA 7 OIL WELL SCOPING REPORT

Oceans Not Oil objected and raised questions in response to the Scoping Report (DESIA) for the proposed exploratory drilling of wells in Block Deep Water Orange Basin (DWOB ) off the West Coast of South Africa. The proposed offshore exploration campaign includes offshore exploration well drilling for up to seven (7) exploration and/or appraisal wells to find out if there is oil and gas, including:

• Vertical seismic profiling; VSP: Using special airguns for seismically analysis

• Well testing

• Plugging and abandonment: Sealing the wells when investigations are done.

1. NEED AND DESIRABILITY

3.1 “In this sense the use of petroleum products, notably gas, is not deemed contradictory to, and rather supportive of, the continued development of renewable energy in South Africa.”

1. If the impact of the project’s production and consumption of petroresources on energy production [3.1] and the economy [3.2] is considered in this DESIA, then the corresponding effects on global warming [3.3] resulting from the same production and consumption must also be assessed on a proportional basis.
   
2. Petroleum products, including natural gas, are non-renewable energy sources. Consequently, their use is inherently at odds with the principles of a renewable energy plan, which emphasizes sustainable and replenishable energy sources.
   
3. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has consistently emphasized the urgent need to phase out all fossil fuels, including natural gas, to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C indicates that achieving this target requires rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy systems, entailing a significant reduction in fossil fuel use. (ipcc.ch)
   
4. Furthermore, the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report underscores that limiting warming to around 1.5°C necessitates global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 and be reduced by 43% by 2030. This ambitious goal implies a substantial decrease in fossil fuel consumption, including natural gas. (ipcc.ch)
   
5. While natural gas has been considered a transitional fuel due to its lower carbon intensity compared to coal and oil, the IPCC highlights that reliance on natural gas without effective mitigation technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, is inconsistent with the pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C. The potential for methane emissions during natural gas production and distribution further exacerbates its impact on climate change. (ipcc.ch)
   
6. Unless TEEPSA can assure South Africans, and indeed the global community, that they can capture the emissions, literally and genuinely, alternatives to fossil fuels must act as energy alternatives

g. Given the existential issues at play, it is beholden on this scoping report (Section 24J of The 2017 Guideline on Need and Desirability, reinforces this obligation) to independently and comprehensively assess consider “all relevant factors” when considering need and desirability.

1. Please supply a comprehensive, public, cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions report.
2. Please supply an expected barrel delivery report showing the expected increase into South Africa’s carbon emissions, and its effects in relation to South Africa’s peak, plateau and decline commitments to the global economy.
3. How will continuous logging, reporting and assessment of emissions data be conducted?How will compliance with climate targets be managed?
4. CH₄ is a dominant component of emissions from offshore oil rigs, released as a result of gas flaring and venting, equipment leaks and evaporation losses, with concomitant emissions of CO₂ mainly due to gas flaring^[ii],[iii]
5. What strategies for the mitigation are in place for the spectrum of these emissions, including fugitive emissions? A CH₄ budget is required.
6. Please provide an annual and public report of flaring volumes by TEEPSA. 

h. In the context of South Africa, integrating natural gas into the energy mix may offer short-term benefits, such as grid stability and support for intermittent renewable energy sources. However, the IPCC’s findings suggest that continued investment in natural gas infrastructure could lock in emissions incompatible with long-term climate goals. Therefore, to align with the IPCC’s recommendations, South Africa should prioritize the development of renewable energy sources and consider natural gas only with stringent emission controls and as part of a clear, time-bound strategy to transition to a fully renewable energy system.

i. while natural gas may provide temporary support during the energy transition, the IPCC’s scientific assessments indicate that its ongoing development is contradictory to achieving the necessary emissions reductions for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. A decisive shift towards renewable energy sources is essential for meeting these climate objectives.

j. The use of petroleum products is not aligned with long-term renewable energy objectives. Please supply:

i. TEEPSA’s clear timelines and 
ii. TEEPSA’s commitments to phase out fossil fuels, ensuring alignment with global climate targets.

k. TEEPSA relies on several energy policy sources to justify the project’s need and desirability:
(i) the Integrated Resource Plan 2023 (IRP), (ii) the IPPP ‘Bid Window’ for 2 GW of gas-generated electricity (Dec 2023), (iii) the Gas Master Plan (2024), and (iv) the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Act 23 of 2024 (UPRDA). However, this reliance is flawed for the following reasons:

i. Lack of a Coherent Energy Policy – South Africa has no overarching energy policy, as the DMRE has failed to develop an Integrated Energy Plan under Section 6 of the National Energy Act 34 of 2008, which took effect on 1 April 2024. In its absence, energy planning has been fragmented, relying on two versions of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which in turn rest on the shaky legal foundation of the Regulations on New Generation Capacity under the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006. These regulations—and by extension, the IRP—apply only to electricity generation. Any reference to gas beyond this scope in the 2010 and 2019 IRPs is ultra vires and cannot inform gas development policy.
ii. IRP 2023 Is a Draft – The Integrated Resource Plan 2023 remains unfinalized and carries no binding authority.
iii. UPRDA Is not in force – The Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Act 23 of 2024 is not yet operational, with no confirmed commencement date.
iv. Failure to Align with Economic Policy – The applicant has not assessed whether indigenous gas development aligns with South Africa’s core economic policy instruments.

This lack of a coherent policy framework undermines any claim that these sources justify the project’s need and desirability.

2. JUST ENERGY TRANSITION
a. How does the project align with the substantive requirements of a just energy transition, as outlined by the Presidential Climate Commission?  

The ESIA must provide a detailed assessment of the just energy transition, including its key requirements and how this project contributes meaningfully to that transition.

3. EMERGENCY RESPONSE

4.2.2.In the unlikely event of an oil spill, the Operator will have an emergency response plan and equipment in place to clean-up such a spill.

1. This is misleading because there is no vessel with equipment standing by to ‘clean-up’. 
   
2. Please supply TEEPSA’s actual Oil Spill Contingency Plan.
3. Table 3. 

1. Why have Protected and Sensitive areas been left out of the impacts of spill?
2. Why is there no indicator for a major spill or blowout? 
3. Plans for worst-case scenarios such as an underground blow-out which cannot be contained using blow-out preventers must be also considered.
   
   d. The Scoping Report 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. Please make these plans public.
   
   e. No guidelines, plans or choices for dispersant use have been provided.
   i. Please explain their chemical components, toxicity, potential for bioaccumulation, ecological impacts through the water column and on the shoreline.
   ii. Please provide, in detail, their specific function, as well as proof of immediate availability of dispersants, considering this is of primary importance in effecting recovery rates.
   
   f. The Scoping Report makes no mention of what appropriate insurance safeguards TEEPSA have in place for remediation against oil spills and other environmental damages. Considering the serious toll a spill would have on safe recreation at beaches, healthy habitats for wildlife, industries such as tourism and fishing, the South African taxpayer and the general public, the EIA should produce proof of these insurance safeguards and a reasonable level of fiscal readiness for long term cleanup and reparation process, in the event of a major disaster.
   
   i. The Final ESIA needs to broach site-specific safety and environmental risk assessment associated with functionality at these depths. 
   ii. Please include anticipated well depths into the seafloor of all wells planned.
   iii. Details of exactly how mitigation of subsurface release will be managed at this depth need to be available to stakeholders and the public.

4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

a. The DESIAR of the project, as required by the NEMA EIA Regulations, must include the cumulative climate impacts of the project.

b. The DESIAR has failed to adequately assess and consider the full extent of cumulative impacts of the exploration, or future production activities, on fisherfolk or marine ecosystems.. In failing to do so, the EIAR fails to give effect to section 63(1)(g) of NEM: ICMA, which requires the competent authority to consider the likely impact of coastal environmental processes on a proposed activity. 

c. Increased offshore anthropogenic activities, such as offshore mining, are likely to generate additional energy costs to the 35 whales and dolphins species populations[i]. Therefore, energy related to reproduction would be jeopardized because the demand for energy would be. 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 species, at an unknown cost.  

5. CONSERVATION AREAS

a. Since petroleum operations are classified as “not compatible” in CBAs (Harris et.al. 2022) the DESIA understates the project’s direct area of influence since about a third of the Area of Interest (AOI) is designated as Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). 

b. A reason for their CBA designation is partly due to their overlap with critical Leatherback and Loggerhead turtle habitats. However, the DSR downplays potential impacts by stating turtle abundance is “unknown but expected to be low.” Given that both species are endangered, low numbers may reflect population decline rather than habitat insignificance. The CBA designation itself confirms the area’s importance for turtles, and the report should not minimize these concerns.

c. Considering that the AOI is surrounded on all sides Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) alternatives to release of drill cuttings overboard must be reassessed.

d. In addition, the buffer areas surrounding these areas are expected to be noted and added to the operational plan. 

e. The environmental assessment process is used to understand the potential environmental impacts of a development. This project will produce intense man-made noise pollution, produce carcinogenic, radioactive and polluting wastes in the water column and on the sea bed, over an extensive area possibly for years, next to critical biodiversity areas. 

6. DURATION

There is a misleading understatement of duration:

i. Please include total amounts of time for operations for 7 wells instead of accounting for only 1. 

ii. Please give details on the maximum amount of time this whole project could take.

7. SOCIO ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

a. The Draft Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (DESIA) must provide concrete evidence of economic benefits to affected communities, rather than relying on vague assertions about alleviating poverty, unemployment, and inequality. This includes presenting real-world examples where petroleum resource extraction has tangibly benefited local populations. 

i. Empirical studies have demonstrated that in countries like Angola, oil booms have led to “Dutch disease,” resulting in economic distortions that harm local economies ( mdpi.com). 
ii.Similarly, in Mozambique, natural resource exploitation has not translated into local benefits, often exacerbating economic disparities (cdn.sida.se) 

iii. In South Africa, the majority of the population has not reaped the rewards of natural resource wealth; instead, certain groups, particularly fishing communities, have suffered adverse effects from offshore oil and gas extraction (seafoodsource.co

b. The DESIA must address these concerns by providing specific, evidence-based justifications for how the proposed project will deliver genuine economic advantages to the local communities involved.

c. Nearly half the AOI is shown to include low intensity fishing. The DESIA has failed to make clear that this project has the potential to reduce catch rates for well over a year, which could prove catastrophic for some of them. These fisheries spend most of its time at sea searching for fish with actual fishing events taking place over a relatively short period of time. The significance of impact of both cumulative effects and extended duration should be considered extremely high should any displacement or accidental discharges occur.

d. 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. All local fisheries and coastal tourism should be evaluated.

i. Plus the constitutional rights of fishers must be accommodated by transparent, convincing accounting utilising up-to-date data for compensation for loss of income to fisheries and subsidiary businesses. 
ii. These figures should be independently audited and must include economic losses by disruptions, loss of earnings plus the effects of negative publicity, persisting public perceptions and potential fishing and harvest bans.

8. DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF HERITAGE RESOURCES NOT RECOGNISED 

a. The NHRA mandates a comprehensive assessment of cultural heritage, including tangible sites, oral traditions, and culturally significant landscapes. It emphasizes preserving heritage for future generations. However, the DSR fails to apply this broad definition and does not meet the legal requirement for a thorough Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). By neglecting the project’s impact on culturally significant marine species, coastal landscapes, and sacred sites, the report falls short of NHRA compliance.

b. Overwhelmingly offshore oil and gas projects, including DWOB, have failed to obtain a valid social license to operate from local First Nation and West Coast coastal communities, or approval among its stakeholders. This is further borne out: 

1. In the Christian John Adams & Others (13 applicants) v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others. (2022, March 1) court interdict 
2. Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co-Operative, Green Connection, Natural Justice  v  v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy & Others (2024, Nov 6).
3. Countless marches and demonstrations and other articulations of dissent as small-scale fishers & associations, civil society and the public have protested against offshore oil and gas operations, which had its maximum expression in a national coastwide march (Dec 2023).

c. By relying solely on the EAP’s discretion to identify I&APs, the DSR fails to ensure meaningful engagement with key cultural heritage stakeholders. It lacks a transparent, legally compliant methodology for identifying and consulting affected communities. The absence of a comprehensive list of groups involved in the heritage impact assessment deprives I&APs of their right to meaningful participation, violating the EIA Regulations, 2014. Without a clear consultation framework, stakeholders cannot assess whether the process is inclusive or if key cultural groups have been excluded.

9. NOISE EMISSIONS
a) What alternatives to Vertical Seismic Profiling have been investigated?

b) Please include the number of airguns being used.

c) Please include the decibel attenuation for the Vertical Seismic Profiling.

d) Please establish cumulative acoustics limits for relevant species

e) Recurring impacts along this section of coastline where there is a wide range of extractive activities and the possibility of concurrent seismic surveys, have not been considered, by the EIAR. Parsons et al. (2009) warn that some of the more insidious, and potentially devastating, impacts arise through long-term, repeated, persistent or cumulative exposures. Cumulative acoustic limits should be established. 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 (Tasker et al. 2010), should lead to limits on the source levels that are introduced on a regional scale.

f) The Underwater Noise Modelling Study also needs to establish a hearing threshold-based safety zone based on a Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shift is imperative to reduce the likelihood of physiological effects resulting in killing of individuals.

g) What international operational guidelines will be followed for mitigation of noise during this operation?

h) 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.

i) Please indicate any electromagnetic operations and the effects to vulnerable species eg. chondrichthyans.

10. BASELINE STUDIES NEEDED

a. 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 (see Table 2. Licence Block DWOB area, are not well studied) 

b. The occurrence of deep-water corals in Block DWOB and the areas of interest are unknown. Therefore potential gains and/or losses at the inter- and intra-species levels; changes in species abundances; loss of habitat; loss of physical connectivity between habitats, and ecosystems and the unknown impacts on seabed features as well as undiscovered species are unaccounted for. Consequently, there is a need for planned, coherent, and consistent ecological data to inform this EIA to develop robust physical and biological baselines. The effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures with well-designed and consistent environmental monitoring is a critical next step.

11. MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT OF RISK FROM OPERATION AT DEPTH

The Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred in water less than half as deep (1,524 meters below the surface) as the pioneer depths at which DWOB will operate (2500m- 3200m). This brings with it the greater potential of gas kick events which occur frequently due to extremely narrow mud weight window and negligible safety margins for well control purposes (Azar and Samuel, 2007), well blowouts, pipeline or riser ruptures. Further, traditional gas kick detection methods in such environments have significant time-lag (Islam 2017; Zhou 2011) and can often lead to severe well control issues (Zhou 2016) and occasionally to well blowouts or borehole abandonment.(Yin et al. 2021), which danger is not raised in the DESIA.

i. Cordes et al have established that the frequency at which accidental discharges of crude oil occuring offshore suggests that they can be expected during “typical” operations (Cordes et al. 2016)
ii. Muehlenbachs et al have shown the likelihood of an accidental release of hydrocarbons or blowout increases with the depth of the operations (Muehlenbachs, Cohen & Gerarden 2013). Their analysis found that each 30,5m of added depth from an average platform increases the probability of a company-reported incident (oil spills, blowouts, accidents and injuries) by 8.5%. 
iii. Blowout frequency is expected to increase with operations deeper waters (Murawski et al. 2019)

12. WELL ABANDONMENT

a. More information is required with regards to well abandonment and its mitigation. How will TEEPSA ensure monitoring will be carried out after production has ceased and throughout de-commissioning?

b. Well failure is a common enough issue[ii] and serious. Please advise as to which actual contractor will be used for well plugging.

c. Will the well abandonment be permanent or temporary? 

d. Please provide information on the types of well barriers utilised, types of plugging materials utilised, their functioning and verification. 

e. Please describe the well-integrity testing methodology to be utilised.

f. Incidents involving radiation sources in well logging have occurred mainly as a result of operator error or equipment failure. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency 2020 Radiation Safety In Well Logging: Specific Safety Guide report, the hazards involved and the necessary control measures should be identified for each of the following conditions:

i.Storage of the well logging sources;
ii. Calibration and operation of the well logging tools; 
iii.Transport of the sources;
iv.Work at the site with the well logging tools;
v. Maintenance of the tools;
vi.Disposal of disused sources; and
vii.The possibility of theft and sabotage of radioactive sources. 

Please identify control measures for each of these conditions.

g. Please provide a report on how the applicant will ensure well monitoring to identify bubbling/leaking events will be carried out after drilling/ /logging/ production/ de-commissioning has ceased.

13. WELL ABANDONMENT

a. Well failure is a common enough issue (Vignes et al 2008) and serious. 

i. Please advise as to which actual contractor will be used for well plugging.
ii. Please describe the well-integrity testing methodology to be utilised.

b.Will the well abandonment be permanent or temporary and what types of well barriers will be utilised, as well as the types of plugging materials utilised, their functioning and verification?

c. How will Shell and partners ensure well monitoring will be carried out after well drilling has ceased and throughout de-commissioning? Please provide a report on how the applicant will ensure well monitoring to identify any bubbling/leaking events.

d. Where will these data be housed?

e. Will South Africans have access to the data and what data would be embargoed, similar to the majority of data in this sector within South Africa? 

f. Incidents involving radiation sources in well logging have occurred mainly as a result of operator error or equipment failure. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (2020) Radiation Safety In Well Logging: Specific Safety Guide report, the hazards involved and the necessary control measures should be identified for each of the following conditions:

i. Storage of the well logging sources;
ii. Calibration and operation of the well logging tools;
iii. Transport of the sources;
iv. Work at the site with the well logging tools;
v. Maintenance of the tools;
vi. Disposal of disused sources; and
vii. The possibility of theft and sabotage of radioactive sources.

g. Please identify control measures for each of these conditions.

The DESIA specialist reports have not been able to provide clear context of sustainable development and justifiable economic and social development, instead they highlight the very clear jeopardy to the extremely biodiverse marine ecology, intangible heritage, subsistence and commercial fisheries are of high and medium significance; the tourism, recreation and hospitality industries could be devastated by an oiled coastline and that job opportunities for locals are minimal.

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