South Africa’s nascent gas ambitions remain a fierce battleground, pitting environmental organisations, oil and gas producers and the government in highly contested legal challenges.
Environmental groups have scored some wins in court, but unhappy proponents for oil and gas say they stand in the way of development.
The country risks having to perpetually import fuel and gas if it does not “regulate” environmental activism and its opposition to exploration, according to the head of energy research at the state-owned South African National Energy Development Institute (Sanedi), Sampson Mamphweli.
This comes after French multinational TotalEnergies informed Petroleum Agency South Africa earlier this month that it may abandon its Brulpadda-Luiperd offshore right application to exploit an estimated one billion barrels of oil equivalent in the block located off the coast, between Mossel Bay and Cape St Francis.
Sanedi’s Mamphweli laid the blame at the door of environmental groups, sentiments shared by Jaco Human, the executive director of the Industrial Industrial Gas Users Association of South Africa, who questioned the role environment groups play in halting exploration projects.
Mamphweli said it was important for the government to “educate” the public about environmental issues, citing the “increasing influence” of environmental groups he accused of spreading misinformation.
“Environmental groups often push incorrect information into the public domain, and that misinformation prevails in communities,” he told the Mail & Guardian.
“For example, they argue that people are getting asthma and other diseases in Mpumalanga due to emissions from Eskom power stations. But where is the scientific evidence that these people have asthma because of emissions?
“As a trained environmental scientist, I understand how to measure emissions and all that, but I wouldn’t claim that someone has asthma due to fossil fuel emissions without proof.”
Mamphweli was referring to a report released by Greenpeace Africa in April, which found that Africa is home to some of the worst nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide hotspots in the world, all of which are primarily linked to thermal power plants. Eskom operates many of the most polluting plants in the country.
The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) slammed Mamphweli’s comments as “quite breathtaking in their ignorance”, and “an insult to the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are damaged and destroyed by breathing in deadly air on a daily basis”.
The links between toxic air pollution, from sources such as Eskom’s coal-fired power stations, and health effects are well known and regularly published by the broad scientific community, both globally and locally, it said.
In a judgment delivered in the high court in Pretoria in March 2022 in the landmark Deadly Air case, Judge Colleen Collis recognised the unhealthy air quality on the Mpumalanga Highveld, home to 12 of Eskom’s coal-fired power stations and Sasol’s coal-to-liquid fuels refinery, as a violation of residents’ constitutional right to an environment that does not jeopardise their health and well-being.
The CER noted how a 2017 scientific report by British expert Mike Holland found that the air pollution from Eskom’s coal plants in South Africa is responsible for more than 2 200 deaths annually and health-related costs that exceed R45 billion a year.
It said a 2023 study by the Centre for Energy and Clean Air confirms that compliance by Eskom with the minimum emissions standards would prevent 34 400 deaths from air pollution and economic costs of R620 billion.
“This is scientifically credible information, and can only be rebutted with equivalently credible information proving otherwise,” the CER said.
The climate crisis is intensifying, with “devastating real-world severe weather impacts” for at-risk people in South Africa, the CER argued.
There is a strong push to establish gas-to-power infrastructure in the country, replacing one fossil fuel source with another, it said, adding: “Gas-based power generation has been shown to be as harmful to the climate as burning coal.”
The scientifically informed Presidential Climate Commission’s electricity planning recommendations found that gas-to-power is not necessary at any significant scale, if at all, to ensure secure and reliable electricity, the CER said.
It strongly agreed that an informed public and their participation is essential and that misinformation is harmful. “In our work, we see such misinformation emanating from those supporting expanded fossil fuel use more than from any other quarter.
“Perhaps it is time to have a public debate on these issues where all roleplayers can bring available scientific information to get to the truth about the underlying considerations.”
The need for informed discussion is crucial, as is regulation, said Robyn Hugo, the director of climate change engagement at shareholder activism organisation Just Share.
“The fossil fuel lobby has for decades delayed and diluted climate action by relying on false narratives, and the comments made here to the effect that exploiting new fossil fuels is about prioritising socio-economic development, are examples of precisely this,” Hugo said.
Oil and gas companies should have started rethinking their priorities a long time ago, weighed in The Green Connection’s advocacy officer, Lisa Makaula.
“Gas still remains a major concern for our ‘just transition’ as science clearly states that it is more potent than the emissions from coal [over a 20-year period] due to methane emissions,” Makaula said.
“While South Africa is on a path to move away from fossils, why would we lock ourselves in a climate disaster? Disadvantaged communities already bear the brunt of climate change, with little improvement when it comes to addressing energy poverty.
“If TotalEnergies is abandoning 11B/12B, we welcome this. The climate crisis is forcing us to adapt, or we perish. These companies must put all their investments in renewable projects.”
TotalEnergies operates Block 11B/12B in the Outeniqua Basin, about 175km off the southern coast of South Africa. It has a 45% ownership stake and leads all exploration activities.
Other reasons for its exit include concerns about whether it is economically and technically feasible to extract oil or gas from the deep ocean.
The Luiperd-Brulpadda project was meant to reduce South Africa’s reliance on gas imports and serve as an alternative to coal-dominated energy generation.
Mamphweli said there was a need for a “balanced energy mix”, that included the use of gas reserves, which he said was critical, especially given the closure of refineries in the country.
“Our lack of energy independence and insufficient gas reserves have made us reliant on importing most of our fuels, exposing us to fluctuating external factors and high costs. The recent conflict in Ukraine exemplifies this vulnerability, as it significantly drove up global fuel prices, affecting South Africa alongside other nations,” he said.
Hugo said South Africa is one of the largest coal producers and consumers in the world, and yet is also a world leader in inequality and unemployment.
“There is no credible evidence to support contentions that exploiting local gas reserves will create ‘hundreds of thousands of jobs’ and bring in ‘billions’. Nor is this the best way to resolve energy poverty,” she said.
“For instance, despite Nigeria’s vast extraction of oil and gas, it has the largest absolute electricity deficit in the world, with 45% of the population reported not to have access to the electricity grid.
“And Mozambicans are now on average poorer than they were before gas was discovered, with the focus on gas having deflected attention and resources from investment in renewable energy, for which Mozambique has some of the highest potential in the world.”
To argue that exploiting the country’s own gas finds will protect South Africa from “fluctuating external factors and high costs” ignores the fact that gas is a global commodity with a global price, Hugo said. Australia, for example, has abundant natural gas reserves and is a leading gas exporter. “But it also faces soaring gas prices and domestic shortages of gas. One of the results is financial strain on households and cost-of-living increases.”
TotalEnergies’ potential exit from the basin coincides with Sasol’s announcement in March to shut down access to natural gas by June 2026. While Sasol continues to operate, it relies on gas from Mozambique, where reserves are dwindling.
The Industrial Gas Users Association of South Africa’s Human previously told the M&G that Sasol’s exit would put about 60 000 jobs at risk as a result of gas shortages.
To mitigate a possible gas “day zero”, Human said the South African industrial users of natural gas have agreed with Electricity and Energy Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa to establish a gas-aggregator company to find alternative gas supplies before the June 2026 deadline.
“The future of our energy landscape hinges on strategic decisions and informed public engagement. Without these, we risk exacerbating our dependency on costly imported fuels and missing opportunities for sustainable energy solutions,” Mamphweli said.
Human said South Africa should be allowed to have an opportunity to establish its energy independence without objections from environmental groups, adding that there was a need for the courts to regulate which cases warrant an objection.
“The current court system and regulatory system allows each and everyone to object to each and everything. We need a review of all these regulatory laws, there has to be some sensibility and merits in the cases from the objections that come against exploration,” he said.
NGOs play a crucial role in defending and promoting environmental rights in South Africa, said Sherelee Odayar, an oil and gas campaigner at Greenpeace Africa and Siyabonga Myeza, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Africa.
“They strive to uphold section 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being,” they said, adding that by advocating for this right, NGOs help ensure that policies and actions are aligned with the Constitution.
“To suggest that environmental activism should be regulated is not only an attack on rights enshrined in the Constitution, but is also a very dangerous suggestion in the context of violent attacks taking place on environmental activists in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. Critics should do well to remember that a robust and effective civil society is one of the essential cornerstones of a vibrant democracy.”
Suggesting that environmental NGOs have an anti-development agenda is “nonsense”, they said. “All environmental NGOs advocate for development, but they seek development that is sustainable and does not exacerbate the environmental crisis. In terms of development, oil and gas exploration often correlates with poor developmental outcomes in Africa, as seen in countries like Nigeria and Angola.”
Mamphweli and Human’s criticisms echo those of Gwede Mantashe, who was until June the minister of mineral resources and energy but whose portfolio has now been refined to mineral and petroleum resources. Mantashe previously said there was a need for NGOs to declare their sources of funding.
“Foreign-funded NGOs are being used to weaponise environmental preservation to block development in developing nations,” he said in October.
Mantashe has also alleged that climate-related disasters were being used to force African countries to stop using fossil fuels.
The Green Connection’s Makaula said that although it acknowledges the complexities of the energy landscape and the need for solutions for economic growth and development, “this cannot be achieved by sidelining environmental concerns or the rights of local communities. Therefore, we should see TotalEnergies’ decision as an opportunity to re-evaluate our energy strategy and accelerate our commitment to renewable energy solutions.”
Natural Justice’s Melissa Groenink-Groves said: “We cannot stand idly by as government and policymakers disempower the people and communities, who stand to be directly impacted by potential negative ecological consequences of the proposed exploratory drilling.”
David Hallowes, a researcher at groundWork, said TotalEnergies has failed to provide solutions to the energy crisis or to future energy plans, adding that the company was only interested in profits from oil and gas, irrespective of the shrinking global carbon budget.
TotalEnergies had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.