FACTSHEET: SHELL SEISMIC SURVEYS OFF THE WILD COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document details two court cases aimed at halting Shell's seismic surveys off South Africa's Wild Coast. While one urgent interdict was dismissed, another was granted on 28 December 2021, based on potential harm to the constitutional, spiritual, and cultural rights of local communities. The applicants argue that Shell lacked necessary environmental authorizations under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), failed to properly consult stakeholders, and ignored climate change impacts. They seek to set aside the exploration rights granted to Impact Africa and Shell, and to establish a legal precedent that an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) under the MPRDA is not a substitute for a NEMA environmental authorization.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Shell Exploration and Production SA planned seismic surveys covering approximately 6,011 square kilometres between Port St Johns and Morgan Bay to assess oil and gas prospects.
  • The Grahamstown High Court granted an interim interdict on 28 December 2021, ordering Shell to stop seismic surveys because the applicants' constitutional, spiritual, heritage, and cultural rights could be harmed.
  • Applicants argue that Shell failed to obtain a required environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and that the existing Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) is not an equivalent substitute.
  • The 2020 Environmental Compliance Audit of the 2013 EMPr, conducted by ERM, omitted scientific research on the harmful effects of seismic testing published between 2013 and 2020.
  • Legal arguments against the exploration right include the failure to consider climate change impacts associated with oil and gas exploration and exploitation, as well as the failure to protect coastal public property for future generations.
  • Applicants allege a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the Minister of Mineral Resources, citing his public promotion of oil and gas exploration and a R15 million donation from the Batho Batho Trust to the African National Congress.

Cite the original document

APA
Natural Justice (2022). FACTSHEET: SHELL SEISMIC SURVEYS OFF THE WILD COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary_final.pdf
Chicago
Natural Justice. FACTSHEET: SHELL SEISMIC SURVEYS OFF THE WILD COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA. 2022. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary_final.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=FACTSHEET: SHELL SEISMIC SURVEYS OFF THE WILD COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA |date=May 2022 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary_final.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{naturaljustice2022factsheet, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{FACTSHEET: SHELL SEISMIC SURVEYS OFF THE WILD COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, year = {2022}, month = may, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Factsheet_Saving-the-Wild-Coast-Summary_final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated