The Shell debacle: adding perspective

At the risk of being absolutely lambasted by my fellow South Africans, I thought it beneficial to write a somewhat controversial post to add some perspective on the seismic survey Shell is planning on conducting on our beautiful wild coast. I do not do so lightly.

As a reminder, I just finished my masters in applied ocean sciences where my dissertation involved eliminating whale entanglements in fishing gear, and am currently working as a climate scientist. I.e. I care a great deal about the environment.

The first thing I did was ask an onboard environmental observer friend of mine for their opinion. As expected, much like the Seaspiracy outrage a few months ago, this issue seems to have been blown out of proportion, once again highlighting the necessity to do one's research before forming an opinion. I have since tried to educate myself further on seismic surveys and their potential dangers to marine life with the hopes of cultivating one of an informed nature.

The complexity of present day issues demand a more holistic approach. Both the environmental and socio-economic impacts of this survey need to be considered.

The following points are some that have shaped MY OPINION:

• An environmental observer will be onboard at all times, watching for marine life, both with 24hr passive acoustic monitoring and visually. Should whales, dolphins, turtles, etc. come within 500m of the ship, all seismic activities will stop immediately and will only resume once they have left the area.

• Seismic surveys have already been taking place on the South African coastline for the past few years. Despite this, whale populations have been on the increase. The majority of the survey is being done off the shelf where there should be reduced biodiversity, an area labelled ‘least concern’ by the last national biodiversity assessment.

• The majority of southern right and humpback whales should have migrated south by this time of year, heading towards their feeding grounds in the Southern Ocean. Many studies have listed potential adverse effects of seismic surveys on marine organisms, but none I have found show definitive proof of seismic surveys harming wildlife, especially to the extent that populations are affected. (Scientists referenced in articles about this survey confirm this.) Behavioural changes have been found, like fish and whales swimming away from the area, or whales communicating more frequently. I haven’t found any evidence of mass mortalities after seismic surveys.

• Whales have been recorded producing sounds from 160dB to 230dB, roughly equivalent to the levels of the airguns used in these surveys. This tells me that the sound probably can’t harm whales since they can make noises as loud themselves. (At 500m from the airguns, the sound intensity would have reduced from 230dB to at least 176dB.)

• Container ships produce sounds around 180dB and frequent our coastlines.

• IF the survey does do harm, is unlikely to be permanent, in my opinion. Marine species have been found to make come backs from the brink after years of over fishing, so I’d assume they’d be able to do the same here, especially since the survey is only 5 months in duration.

• Natural gas and oil are both far more environmentally friendly than coal (our current fuel of choice, due to its accessibility). If found, South Africa will have access to these to satisfy future power needs (renewable power stations often need supplementary fossil fuel stations to supply power on overcast or windless days) at a fraction of the costs of importing. The benefits to our economy would be significant and our ability to assist in the development of our fellow African countries would improve.

These points show my hand as being pro development. I am therefore not against this project, AS LONG AS IT IS DONE IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER, both environmentally and socio-economically. I think many would agree with me. Due to the state of unemployment and poverty in our country, we need to consider the money this and similar projects will bring to local communities and the South African economy. Shell has a sustainability department that implements sustainable development in local communities in South Africa and around the world. Check out their sustainability and environmental policies here: https://www.shell.co.za/sustainability.html and https://www.shell.com/sustainability. They seem to be making an effort to be more environmentally friendly, transparent, and sustainable. We don’t want to chase away future potential investors.

Unfortunately, corruption is an ever-present tumour in any substantial financial endeavour. It is this that I hope the protests and petitions will uproot by casting light on any shadowy business or oversight that potentially occurred during the procurement of the environmental impact assessment. Shell must make absolutely certain that they are following best practice procedures (backed by the most recent scientific data) at all times. They must be held liable throughout the endeavour and understand that we will not tolerate negligence. Non-negotiable.

Every point I’ve mentioned can be argued. (Please point me towards respective papers if that is the case.) However, I believe they are reasonable and worth considering, and at the very least, should highlight the complexity of the issue. Nothing is ever as black and white and it seems.

Link to the environmental management plan for the survey:

https://cdn.slrconsulting.com/.../CGG_Cover_ToC_Oct21.pdf