factsheet_saving-the-wild-coast-summary-cc1b4747392d8337.pdf

This factsheet details legal challenges brought against Shell Exploration and Production SA and the South African government to stop seismic surveys off the Wild Coast. It outlines two primary court cases: one unsuccessful urgent interdict by environmental and angling groups, and a successful interdict by local communities. The document summarizes the applicants' arguments regarding the lack of environmental authorization, inadequate consultation, and the failure to consider climate change and cultural rights, while explaining the potential legal precedents a victory would establish for future seismic testing in South Africa.

• Shell Exploration and Production SA planned seismic surveys covering approximately 6,011 square kilometres between Port St Johns and Morgan Bay, starting 1 December 2021, to evaluate oil and gas prospects.
• The exploration right was originally granted to Impact Africa in May 2014 by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, but the company did not conduct an environmental impact assessment or obtain environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
• In the first court case (Border Deep Sea Angling Association and others), the Grahamstown High Court dismissed an urgent interdict on 3 December 2021. While the judge found prima facie prospects of success due to "apparent inadequate public participation processes", the application failed because the judge did not find a reasonable apprehension of "irreparable harm" and decided the "balance of convenience" favoured Shell.
• In the second court case (Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and others), the Grahamstown High Court granted an interdict on 28 December 2021, ordering Shell to stop seismic surveys. Judge Gerald Bloem ruled there was a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm to the applicants' constitutional rights, specifically their "spiritual, heritage and cultural rights".
• Applicants argue that the Minister of Mineral Resources failed to consider several critical factors, including the cumulative impact of exploration activities, the climate change impacts of oil and gas exploitation, and the spiritual and cultural rights of coastal communities.
• The applicants allege a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Minister, citing his public comments promoting oil and gas exploration and a R15 million donation to the African National Congress from the Batho Batho Trust, a stakeholder in Shell's broad-based black economic empowerment partner, between October and December 2021.
• A successful outcome would seek to set aside the original 2014 grant and subsequent renewals of the exploration right, and establish a legal precedent that an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) under the MPRDA is not equivalent to an environmental authorisation under NEMA.

APA

Natural Justice (n.d.). factsheet_saving-the-wild-coast-summary-cc1b4747392d8337.pdf. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. factsheet_saving-the-wild-coast-summary-cc1b4747392d8337.pdf. n.d. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=factsheet_saving-the-wild-coast-summary-cc1b4747392d8337.pdf |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljusticendfactsheetsavingthewildcoastsummarycc1b4747392d8337pdf, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{factsheet\_saving-the-wild-coast-summary-cc1b4747392d8337.pdf}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }