TotalEnergies and Shell’s offshore drilling plans at risk as court throws a spanner in the works

August 15, 2025, by Melisa Cavcic

As oil and gas exploration off South Africa’s coast continues to garner attention, the offshore drilling activities planned by two energy giants, France’s TotalEnergies and the UK-based Shell, have hit a snag, with the Western Cape High Court opting to set aside the South African government’s decision to grant environmental authorization for offshore drilling in Block 5/6/7, along the southwest coast.

A ruling, delivered by Judge Mangcu-Lockwood, following an intense legal challenge launched by the Green Connection and Natural Justice to expose flaws in how the environmental and social risks were evaluated, has returned the ball into the Department of Minerals and Petroleum’s court, requiring fresh assessments, additional information, and public participation.

TotalEnergies EP South Africa (Teepsa), a subsidiary of TotalEnergies, which previously secured the go-ahead for drilling operations from the country’s authorities, intends to transfer the environmental authorization to Shell, which plans to conduct the drilling. However, the environmental and climate lobby decided to put a stop to these activities by launching a legal challenge as these groups are convinced that the project will harm marine life.

Block 5/6/7 is jointly owned by South Africa’s state oil company PetroSA, TotalEnergies, and Shell, with the French firm acting as the operator. The judge underlined in its ruling that the process was deeply flawed, emphasizing five major issues, including no proper study of what a disaster would mean for communities, ignoring coastal protection laws, climate change impacts not being properly assessed, no assessment of cross-border harm, and the public being kept in the dark on key emergency plans.

Shahil Singh, Legal Advisor to the Green Connection, underlined: “A critical omission, the Oil Spill and Blowout Contingency Plans were withheld from the public until after approval, denying communities the chance to comment on emergency preparedness. Total and Shell will now need to undertake additional studies, make these plans publicly available, and properly assess both coastal and cross-border risks before any decision is taken.

“This is a significant win for transparency, precaution, and for the rights of coastal communities and small-scale fishers who refuse to be sidelined in decisions that affect their livelihoods and the future of our oceans.”

Pillars on which court ruling rests

While the project’s environmental impact assessment outlined that a blowout or oil spill could cause serious damage to the coastal environment, the court concluded that it did not assess the full economic and social impacts on the small-scale fishers and coastal communities who depend on these waters for food and income.

Considering the extent of limitations in conducting assessments, the court found that a cautious approach needs to be taken, underscoring that a lack of scientific certainty cannot be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

As the project lies in South Africa’s exclusive economic zone, in waters which are considered to be coastal public property, the court confirmed that the assessment of climate change impacts should form part of the assessment. The judgment points out that it makes no sense to rely on the positive benefits of production, but not the negative climate change consequences, because oil and gas exploration and production activities are intertwined.

Melissa Groenink-Groves, Natural Justice, Defending Rights Programme Manager, noted: “This judgment is a victory in the growing opposition to oil and gas exploration in our country. Recently, a number of oil and gas projects have been given Environmental Authorisation, but this judgment again confirms that companies must follow due process, undertake comprehensive assessments and provide communities with an opportunity to have their voices heard, in respect of all relevant information.

“It confirms that our fight for our environmental rights is strong, and that we must continue for the future for our children. Where necessary, we will continue to turn to our courts to not only stop the takers who parade under the guise of growth and development, but to ensure that impacts of oil and gas exploration and production are properly scrutinised and that our people and our resources are not exploited.”

View on Offshore-energy.

Environmental groups claim that scientific spill modelling for the project showed that oil from a disaster could reach the waters and shores of Namibia; thus, the impacts on neighboring countries should be considered, as there was an obligation for the environmental impact assessment to consider the harms caused by transboundary impacts to be considered by the decision-makers.

Two documents, the Oil Spill Contingency Plan and the Blowout Contingency Plan, allegedly were not made public before approval, implying that interested and affected parties, including communities that would be most affected in the event of an oil spill, could not comment on how the company planned to respond to a disaster.

As a result, the court found that the lack of this information meant that there had not been a full assessment and description of how TotalEnergies intends to respond to pollution or environmental degradation, as required by the National Environmental Management Act.

Court comes up with set of orders

Keeping the issues it found firmly in mind, the court set aside the decision to grant the environmental authorization, claiming that a new decision needs to be taken by allowing TotalEnergies or Shell to submit new or amended assessments.

These need to assess the socio-economic impacts of a well blow-out on coastal communities; the full lifecycle climate impacts associated with the exploration and exploitation; each of the factors required in the Integrated Coastal Management Act; the transboundary impacts of the project on Namibia; and detailed oil spill response plans.

In addition, the new information needs to be subject to public consultation before a decision is taken. This case is about far more than just one drilling project for the environmental lobby, which underlines that the ruling sends a clear message about laws demanding full, open, and honest assessment, not partial studies, if a project carries serious environmental and social risks.

Liziwe McDaid, the Green Connection’s Strategic Lead, pointed out: “Our country’s laws demand full, open, and honest assessment, not partial studies, not secrecy, and not ignoring inconvenient truths. For the West Coast’s small-scale fishers, tourism operators, and coastal residents, it means the law is on their side in demanding protection of the ocean they depend on.

“For the public, it shows that environmental rights, including the right to have the environment protected for present and future generations, have real force in court. And for our neighbours, it means that the transboundary impacts of the project must be assessed.”

Ahead of reconsidering any approval of the project, TotalEnergies is required to submit new or amended assessments that fully examine the socio-economic impacts of a well blowout on coastal communities, the project’s full lifecycle climate impacts, all factors required under the Integrated Coastal Management Act, potential cross-border impacts on Namibia, and detailed oil spill response plans, which will be subject to public scrutiny.

Lesai Seema, Director at Cullinan & Associates, remarked: “We welcome this judgment which builds on the landmark judgments in the litigation to stop Shell conducting seismic surveys off the Wild Coast and aligns South African law with international law.

“The judgment makes it clear that the granting of an environmental authorisation for offshore oil and gas exploitation will be unlawful if the decision-maker does not carefully consider a range of factors necessary to safeguard the long-term collective interests of people and other living organisms who depend on the coastal and marine environment.”