Court Halts Shell's Deep-Water Drilling Plans Off South Africa's Coast
Fishing communities secure protection as court blocks oil exploration off South Africa's coast
Melissa Groenink Groves had a simple way of describing what South Africa’s highest court decided on Friday. “What the ConCourt decided was that the exploration right should be set aside,” said the attorney and program manager at Natural Justice, one of the organizations that spent five years fighting Shell Plc’s plans to drill off the Wild Coast.
That ruling ends a legal battle that began in 2021, when Shell and a local partner proposed seismic surveys in waters off one of South Africa’s most ecologically sensitive stretches of coastline, an area known for its whale populations and the fishing communities that depend on the ocean. Residents and environmental groups moved quickly to block the surveys, arguing that local people had not been adequately consulted and that marine life was at risk. A court granted an interdict halting the activity. A high court then set aside the original decision to grant the exploration right, along with two subsequent renewals Shell had sought.
Shell appealed. In a partial victory, the Supreme Court of Appeal allowed the company to apply for a third renewal, on the condition that it properly consult affected communities. Environmental groups challenged that outcome, arguing that once a court sets aside an exploration right, the right ceases to exist and cannot simply be renewed. The Constitutional Court agreed.
For the fishing communities along the Wild Coast, the ruling closes off a threat that had hung over their livelihoods since 2021. The seismic surveys they feared, and the broader prospect of offshore drilling in waters they rely on, can no longer advance under the legal framework Shell had been pursuing.
Shell acknowledged the judgment briefly. “We are committed to responsible offshore exploration, meaningful stakeholder engagement and environmental stewardship,” a company spokesperson said, adding that South Africa currently relies on imports to meet many of its energy needs. “Should viable resources be found offshore, this could significantly contribute to South Africa’s energy security and the Government’s economic development programmes,” the statement read.
By contrast, the ruling lands as a clear strengthening of the legal tools available to communities and environmental groups challenging oil exploration in South African waters. The court’s position, that a set-aside exploration right loses its legal foundation entirely and cannot be revived through renewal applications, sets a precedent that could shape how future disputes play out.
The stakes in those future disputes are rising. Shell and TotalEnergies SE are among several companies pursuing offshore prospects in South African waters, drawn in part by major crude discoveries in neighboring Namibia’s maritime zone in 2022, which turned the region into one of Africa’s most active exploration frontiers. TotalEnergies Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanne, speaking on a November 30 earnings call, described the legal environment in South Africa with some frustration. “Each time we want to do it, we need to go to court,” he said. “It’s a little difficult.”
Whether Friday’s ruling prompts companies to rethink their approach to community consultation before seeking exploration rights, or simply shifts the legal battles to new terrain, remains the question that communities along South Africa’s coastline are now watching closely.
Q&A
Who are the primary people affected by the court's decision and what changes for them?
Fishing communities along the Wild Coast, who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods, are protected from the threat of seismic surveys and offshore drilling that had hung over them since 2021. The ruling closes off a legal pathway Shell had been pursuing to conduct exploration in waters they rely on.
What did the Constitutional Court decide about Shell's exploration right?
The court ruled that the exploration right should be set aside and cannot be renewed. Once a court sets aside an exploration right, it ceases to exist entirely and cannot be revived through renewal applications, rejecting Shell's previous partial victory at the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Why did residents and environmental groups initially oppose Shell's plans?
They argued that local people had not been adequately consulted about the seismic surveys and that marine life, including whale populations in the ecologically sensitive Wild Coast area, faced unacceptable risk from the proposed exploration activity.
What broader implications does this ruling have for future oil exploration disputes in South African waters?
The ruling strengthens the legal tools available to communities and environmental groups challenging oil exploration and sets a precedent that could shape how future disputes play out, though companies like TotalEnergies continue to pursue offshore prospects in the region.