The battle over oil and gas exploration in South Africa intensified this week, as environmentalists sought approval of a seismic survey in the Western Cape High Court. While the decision is pending, the case highlights the urgent balancing act between energy needs and environmental protection.
Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Cooperative, The Green Connection and Natural Justice are leading the legal challenge against the state and TGS Geophysical Company UK Ltd.
service of public interest
According to Neville van Rooy, Outreach Ambassador for The Green Connection, “A key issue was whether decision makers had access to and properly considered all the relevant information before approving the project.
“Given its potential consequences for marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods, this case is not just about compliance – it is about transparent and lawful decisions that genuinely serve the public interest.”
This case concerns environmental authorization granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) and, on appeal, confirmed by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment for a large-scale offshore 3D seismic survey off the west coast of South Africa for the exploration of oil and gas reserves.
Small-scale fishermen and civil society organizations approached the courts to review these decisions.
The applicants argue that a number of key issues were not adequately assessed before environmental authorization was granted, including the risks posed by seismic blasts – high-intensity sound waves used to map the ocean floor for potential oil and gas deposits – to marine species and the ecosystems on which coastal communities depend.
“The assessment of project necessity and desirability focuses largely on the projected economic benefits of the project.
“However, what is missing is a proper assessment of the potential costs, risks and consequences for coastal communities, marine ecosystems and future generations of the oil and gas value chain, starting with seismic surveys.
“Not considering the whole picture is careless. It's like deciding to buy a house based on looks or size, without checking whether the roof is leaking, whether the area floods in winter or what the monthly costs will be.”
“The aim of responsible decision-making is to weigh the potential benefits against the long-term risks and consequences,” says Van Rooy.
“We therefore hope that the Court, as in the Searcher Geodata case, will hold that significant environmental and social impacts were not adequately considered before authorization was granted,” he says.
Justified?
The case also focused on whether “need and desirability” were properly assessed.
This means conducting thorough investigations to ensure that the project is necessary, environmentally responsible and socio-economically appropriate.
Environmental organizations believe that the project's approval raises broader concerns about how energy decisions are being made.
“This case also highlights another question that is at the heart of this case, and the other legal challenges we have brought: How can South Africa claim to have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement, when almost 90% of its maritime territory is leased for offshore oil and gas exploration?
“Oil and gas exploration cannot be considered in isolation.
“Decision-makers must assess full lifecycle impacts, including environmental, social and climate consequences, rather than focusing on speculative economic benefits,” says Van Rooy.
The organizations had previously challenged the government's approval of TotalEnergies Block 5/6/7 offshore drilling plans.
The Western Cape High Court overturned the approval and ruled that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) failed to address key risks, legal requirements and public participation.
© 2026. Bizcommunity.com SyndiGate Media Inc. Provided by (Syndigate.info).