Court rules in Shell’s favor to start seismic survey off South Africa’s West Coast

by: Tanika van Graan

Royal Dutch Shell plc. (Shell), which is an energy and petrochemical company, has been permitted by a South African High Court to start their seismic tests to search for oil alongside the South African West Coast.[1] This Court ruling is currently facing a nationwide pushback because of the threat it poses to South Africa’s marine life.[2]

What are seismic surveys?

The word “seismic” refers to earthquakes or the earth’s vibrations that are caused by natural or artificial events.[3] In a seismic survey, seismic waves are created underneath the earth’s surface[4], for example; ships create seismic waves using water or air guns that set off explosive charges throughout the ocean.[5] These waves vibrate on the subsurface formations and reflect back to the earth’s surface.[6] Sensors, known as “geophones”, detect the waves’ movement, which, after calculations, are used to determine if there is oil and gas beneath the earth’s surface.[7]

Why are seismic surveys seen as a threat to marine life?

The West Coast is a popular destination among locals looking for an escape from the busy city life. The Coast holds an untouched marine environment where animals such as humpback whales, dolphins, and seals are frequently spotted from June till December. However, environmental activists are concerned that Shell’s upcoming plans may intervene with the species’ seasonal migration.[8] They speculate that the West Coast’s diverse marine environment will be demolished by the seismic surveys.[9] Not only will marine life suffer the consequences, but the communities will also bear the burden of Shell’s plan.[10] While a lot of focus has been put on the whale’s migration, fish will also move from the offshore, creating adverse effects for small fishing communities.[11]

Shell V. Marine Activists

Environmentalists brought an urgent application before the South African High Court to halt Shell’s seismic surveys, based on the fact that the surveys could give rise to “irreparable harm” to the Coast’s marine life.[12] Lawyers standing by this notion argued that Shell’s surveys are based on “unjust administrative action”[13], and that it’s exploration campaign was established on an outdated approval process.[14] Shell, on the other hand, argued that they received the necessary approval to conduct the campaign[15], and they affirmed their compliance to set-out regulations and legal obligations.[16] Shell further promulgated its strategy of slowly increasing the sounds erupting from their seismic vessels to allow the sea mammals to disengage with the sound source.[17] The Court rules in Shell’s favor because there was no sufficient evidence that Shell’s seismic surveys will cause irreversible harm to the marine environment, and that the survey’s delay will result in profound financial costs for the company.[18] It has also been noted that the natural sources acquired during the survey can significantly contribute to South Africa’s energy security.[19]

Alternative method

Although the Court found that there was not enough evidence to show that the seismic surveys cause “irreparable harm” to marine life, other researchers differ from the Court’s decision.[20] Besides the sound waves causing permanent damage to the animals’ hearing and psychological wellbeing, research has found that the sea animals can experience a change in their vocalizations which subsequently effects their mating, navigation and feeling.[21]With these negative effects being established, alternatives for seismic surveys have been found such as Marine Vibroseis (MV).[22] MVC is a quitter and less impactful alternative that uses the same amount of energy over a longer period.[23] this results in lowering the sound’s pressure through the ocean and eliminating the sound’s sharp rise time which slows down the process of increasing the loudness of the sound.[24]

In light of the South African High Court’s decision allowing Shell to conduct seismic surveys, it can be concluded that when it comes to the protection of our environment, there are numerous issues that need to be addressed. Issues such as the welfare of marine animals and fishing communities are amongst the exhaustive list of those affected by Shell’s continuous disfavor to the environment. We should look at this situation not just as an environmental problem, but also as a civilized one. Communities are on opposite sides and as a society, we should find a way to work together where communities can support the business market whilst the environment’s health is not being compromised.

[1] Kelly Mutizira, ‘How will Shell’s plans affect the Wild Coast, explained’ (The Daily Vox, 1 December 2021)< How will Shell's plans affect the Wild Coast, explained - The Daily Vox>accessed 3 December 2021. [2] Ibid. [3] Kate Lowery, ‘Seismic Surveys 101’ (American Petroleum Institute, 8 November 2021) <API | Seismic Surveys 101>accessed 8 December 2021. [4] Ibid. [5] Jillian Ambrose, ‘Shell to go ahead with seismic tests in whale breeding grounds after court win’ (The Guardian, 3 December 2021)< Shell to go ahead with seismic tests in whale breeding grounds after court win | Royal Dutch Shell | The Guardian>accessed 8 December 2021. [6] Kate Lowery, ‘Seismic Surveys 101’ (American Petroleum Institute, 8 November 2021) <API | Seismic Surveys 101>accessed 8 December 2021. [7] Ibid. [8] (f5). [9] Ibid. [10] Paul Burkhardt and Laura Hurst, ‘Shell faces pushback over offshore South Africa seismic survey plans’ (World Oil, 29 November 2021) < Shell faces pushback over offshore South Africa seismic survey plans (worldoil.com)>accessed 8 December 2021. [11] Ibid. [12] ‘Shell wins court case to start seismic surveys offshore South Africa’ (Reuters, 3 December 2021) <Shell wins court case to start seismic surveys offshore South Africa | Reuters> accessed 8 December 2021. [13] Ibid. [14] (f5) [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] (f5) [19] ’Shell wins court case to start seismic surveys offshore South Africa’ (Reuters, 3 December 2021) <Shell wins court case to start seismic surveys offshore South Africa | Reuters> accessed 8 December 2021. [20] Lindy Weilgart, ‘Alternative Quieting Technology to Seismic Airguns for Oil and Gas Exploration and Geophysical Research [2016] GSDR <Microsoft Word - GSDR_Brief_2016_Alternative Quieting Technology (un.org)> accessed 9 December 2021. [21] Ibid. [22] Kbastolla, ‘Marine Vibroseis: A Safer Alternative to Seismic Airguns for the Nort Atlantic Right Whale’ (Debating Science, 23 April 2019.) <https://blogs.unmass.edu/natsci397a-eross/marine-vibroseis-a-safer-alternative-to-seismic-airguns-for-the-north-atlantic-right-whale/ >accessed 13 December 2021. [23] Lindy Weilgart, ‘Alternative Quieting Technology to Seismic Airguns for Oil and Gas Exploration and Geophysical Research [2016] GSDR <Microsoft Word - GSDR_Brief_2016_Alternative Quieting Technology (un.org)> accessed 9 December 2021. [24] Ibid.