Earlier this week, four organisations, including Greenpeace Africa and Natural Justice, filed the urgent court bid to halt Shell’s seismic surveys along the wild coast. Many say that the testing would cause irreparable harm to birdlife and sea life. And that a judicial review of the massive oil company’s, possibly outdated, environmental authorisation was necessary. Yet, the High Court ruling was in favour of Royal Dutch Shell. Thereby permitting seismic survey activities along the wild coast of South Africa. Activists, as well as many members of the public, are outraged.
Why the Court Ruling was in Favour of Shell
Acting judge Avinash Govindjee delivered the ruling at the Makhanda High Court in the Eastern Cape. He states that Shell has provided details on compliance with its Environmental Management Programme. Furthermore, he added that the applicants had failed to convince him that there was a reasonable apprehension of “irreparable harm”. And that amongst other factors, given the financial prejudice to Shell if the seismic surveys were delayed, the “balance of convenience” was in Shell’s favour.
Shell spokesperson, Pam Ntaka says “We have conducted an environmental study in line with regulatory requirements and obtained legal permits to carry out the activity”. She also added that South African Government’s economic development programs could benefit from any possible resources found.
Shell also argued that the urgent application to stop the seismic testing project was nothing short of abusive. And Adrian Friedman, the company’s legal counsel, suggests that the urgency was “self-created”. As Shell claims that hundreds of potentially interested and affected parties were notified well before the time. Yet, the applicants indicated that they only learnt of Shell’s planned seismic survey in the past three weeks. As petitions and information started circulating on social media.
Response from Applicants
John Rance, Chair of Kei Mouth Skiboat Club (KMSBC) said, “Shell and its shareholders should be ashamed of themselves. We should all be telling our investment advisors and pension funds to disinvest from Shell. It’s the only language they understand.”
Executive director of Natural Justice, Pooven Moodley said: “Our fight to safeguard the Wild Coast is not over”
And Happy Khambule, senior climate and energy campaign manager for Greenpeace Africa says “Not only will the blasting destroy precious biodiverse ecosystems, but it will also destroy the livelihoods of local communities, all in the name of profit”.
While John Luef of the Border Deep Sea Angling Association said: “This is not the end, we will continue to fight for our local people, their heritage and the environment. We call on South Africans to stand together and protest this invasive and environmentally harmful seismic survey, as well as any future mining plans.”
In the meantime, another grouping of applicants has already filed a second urgent interim late yesterday. The court will hear the new application on December 14, 2021. The new applicants state that “Our application for an urgent interdict is based on the simple fact that Shell does not have an environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act for this survey.”
As it stands, no one can confirm if Royal Dutch Shell has begun their seismic surveys yet.