esia approach and process - slr consulting chap3.pdf · total e & p south africa b.v. slr...

TOTAL E & P South Africa B.V. SLR Project No. 720.20047.00005 ESIA for Additional Exploration Activities in Block 11B/12B: Final Scoping Report September 2020

21

3 ESIA APPROACH AND PROCESS

This chapter outlines the team members and the approach and methodology followed in the ESIA process.

3.1 DETAILS OF THE ESIA PROJECT TEAM

As noted in Chapter 1, SLR has been appointed as the independent EAP to undertake the ESIA for the proposed

exploration activities. The details of the SLR ESIA project team and appointed specialists are provided in Table 3-1.

SLR has no vested interest in the proposed project other than fair payment for consulting services rendered as

part of the ESIA process and has declared its independence as required by the EIA Regulations 2014, as amended

(see Appendix 1).

Table 3-1: Details of the ESIA project team and specialists

Company Name Qualifications Experience

(years) Roles

ESIA Project Team

SLR Consulting

Andrew

Bradbury

MSc. (Environmental

Assessment and Management) 26 Project Director

Jeremy Blood MSc. (Cons. Ecol.), University of

Stellenbosch 21 Project Review

Jessica Hughes MPhil. (Env. Sci.), University of

Cape Town & MSc. (Zoology),

University of Natal 25

Project management of the ESIA

process, including process review,

specialist baseline study review and

DSR report compilation

Matthew

Hemming

MSc (Cons. Biology) University

of Cape Town & BSc. Agric.

(Wildlife science), University of

Natal

14 Project management and FSR

compilation

Eloise

Costandius

MSc. (Ecol. Assessment),

University of Stellenbosch 15 Report compilation

Nicholas Arnott Hons. (Earth & Geog. Sci.),

University of Cape Town 14 Report compilation

Specialist Team

SLR Consulting

Australia

Binghui Li PhD (Physics – Underwater

Acoustics), Curtin University 17

Underwater Noise Modelling Study

Dana Lewis ME (Mech), University of

Queensland 2

Pisces Environmental

Services Andrea Pulfrich

PhD (Fisheries Biology),

Christian-Albrechts University,

Kiel, Germany

25 Marine Ecology Impact Assessment

Capricorn Marine

Environmental

Dave Japp MSc. (Ichthyology and Fisheries

Science), Rhodes University 32

Commercial Fisheries Impact

Assessment Sarah Wilkinson

BSc. (Hons) (Botany), University

of Cape Town 17

Nomad Socio-

Economic

Management and

Consulting

Greg Huggins MSocSc. (Anthropology),

University of Cape Town 30

Social Impact Assessment Marco Da

Cunha

MSc. (Geog. and Environ.

Management), University of

Natal

16


22

Company Name Qualifications Experience

(years) Roles

HES (H-Expertise

Services SAS) Benjamin Livas

MSc. (Dynamic of Aquatic

Ecosystems, Biodiversity),

University of Pau - France

10

Drilling Discharges and Oil Spill

Modelling

PRDW Stephen Luger

MSc. (Engineering), University

of Cape Town 28

Independent peer review of Drilling

Discharges and Oil Spill Modelling

Airshed Planning

Professionals

Dr Lucian

Burger

PrEng, PhD (Natal),

MScEng(chem), BScEng(chem) 34 Climate Change Impact Assessment

Profiles of the SLR key team members are provided below:

Andrew Bradbury is a Technical Director at SLR and leads the Energy Sector for SLR in Africa. Andrew has over 26

of consulting experience in the oil and gas, power (conventional, hydro, and renewable), finance & legal, chemical,

infrastructure and built environment sectors. Andrew has worked on projects in South Africa, Mozambique,

Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Angola, Gabon, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Botswana, Gambia, Ethiopia,

Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Dubai, St Vincent and the Grenadines,

Commonwealth of Dominica and Saint Lucia. He is a registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with SACNASP.

Jeremy Blood has 21 years of experience in a range of environmental disciplines, including EIAs, Environmental

Management Programmes, Environmental Auditing and Monitoring in South Africa, Namibia, Mozambique and

Kenya. He has expertise in a wide range of projects, including oil and gas, mining and infrastructure. He is a

registered South African Environmental Assessment Practitioner as well as a registered Professional Natural

Scientist with SACNASP.

Jessica Hughes has 25 years of experience as an environmental and biodiversity consultant working mainly on

EIAs, with a specialisation in coordination of biodiversity studies to international lender standards. She has

worked on a wide range of projects in Africa in many sectors, including power (hydropower and renewable

energy), mining, oil and gas, dams and linear infrastructure. She has also been involved in the compilation of

biodiversity guidelines for major oil and gas clients based on several international performance and benchmark

standards. She is registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with SACNASP.

Matthew Hemming has worked as an environmental assessment practitioner since 2006 and has been involved

in numerous projects covering a range of environmental disciplines, including Basic Assessments, Environmental

Impact Assessments and Environmental Management Programmes. He has gained experience in a wide range of

projects relating to onshore oil and gas exploration, infrastructure projects (e.g. waste sites) and industrial

developments. Matthew is an Environmental Assessment Practitioner registered with the Environmental

Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa and is registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with

SACNASP.

Eloise Costandius has worked as an environmental assessment practitioner since 2005 and has been involved in

numerous projects covering a range of environmental disciplines, including Basic Assessments, Environmental

Impact Assessments and Environmental Management Programmes. She has gained experience in a wide range of

projects relating to oil and gas exploration, infrastructure projects (e.g. roads) and industrial developments. She

is registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with SACNASP.

Nicholas Arnott has worked as an environmental assessment practitioner since 2006 and has been involved in

numerous projects covering a range of environmental disciplines, including Basic Assessments, Environmental

Impact Assessments and Environmental Management Programmes. He has gained experience in a wide range of


23

projects relating to mining and prospecting, infrastructure projects (e.g. roads), housing and industrial

developments. He is registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with SACNASP.

CVs of the SLR team for the ESIA are included in Appendix 2.

3.2 ESIA ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The ESIA assumptions and limitations are listed below:

• SLR assumes that all relevant project information has been shared by TEPSA and that it was correct and

valid at the time it was provided;

• Precise locations for the project activities are not confirmed and the drilling sites are to be located within

an indicative proposed new drill area. The ESIA studies will assess generic well drilling locations within this

defined area and the impact assessment will be representative of well drilling in any location within this

defined area. Similarly, CSEM and metocean buoy mooring sites may occur anywhere within the

Block 11B/12B and will also be assessed based on unconfirmed locations;

• The indicative technical specifications for well drilling are based on generic industry information, previous

and future drilling campaigns and may vary slightly from well to well. It is assumed that the technical

specifications on which this ESIA is based are roughly equivalent to that which will be used during the

proposed future drilling campaigns;

• There will be no significant changes to the project description or surrounding environment between the

completion of the ESIA Report and implementation of the proposed project that could substantially

influence findings, recommendations with respect to mitigation and management, etc;

• This ESIA will consider potential impacts of the proposed additional exploration activities on the biophysical

and social environments that have been identified within the project’s area of influence as described in

Section 7.2;

• The ESIA will consider the assessment of activities proposed as part of the additional exploration activities

but does not aim to identify or assess the impacts or benefits of possible future exploration or production

activities or outcomes;

• Cumulative impacts of planned activities, in the context of other exploration activities, will be considered

in the ESIA, to the extent that this is feasible based on the available information about other authorised oil

and gas developments at the time the ESIA is prepared; and

• No significant changes to the project description or surrounding environment will occur between the

submission of the ESIA and implementation of the proposed project that could substantially influence

findings and recommendations with respect to mitigation and management.

These assumptions and limitations, however, are not considered to have any negative implications in terms of the

credibility of the results of the ESIA process.

3.3 ESIA PROCESS

The overall ESIA Process consists of two phases, namely the Scoping and ESIA phases. A flowchart indicating the

ESIA process is presented in Figure 3-1. The process is currently in the Scoping phase.


24

3.3.1 Scoping Phase

3.3.1.1 Objectives

In accordance with Appendix 2 of GN No. R982 (as amended), the “objective of the scoping process is to, through

a consultative process -

a) identify the relevant policies and legislation relevant to the activity;

b) motivate the need and desirability of the proposed activity, including the need and desirability of the activity

in the context of the preferred location;

c) identify and confirm the preferred activity and technology alternative through an identification of impacts

and risks and ranking process of such impacts and risks;

d) identify and confirm the preferred site, through a detailed site selection process, which includes an

identification of impacts and risks [assessment process] inclusive of identification of cumulative impacts and

a ranking process of all the identified alternatives focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social,

economic, and cultural aspects of the environment;

e) identify the key issues to be addressed in the assessment phase;

f) agree on the level of assessment to be undertaken, including the methodology to be applied, the expertise

required as well as the extent of further consultation to be undertaken to determine the impacts and risks

the activity will impose on the preferred site through the life of the activity, including the nature,

significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts to inform the location of the

development footprint within the preferred site; and

g) identify suitable measures to avoid, manage or mitigate identified impacts and to determine the extent of

the residual risks that need to be managed and monitored.”

The Scoping process consisted of a series of steps to ensure compliance with these objectives and the EIA

Regulations 2014 as set out in GN No. R982 (as amended). The process is required to involve an open, participatory

approach to ensure that all impacts are identified, and that decision-making takes place in an informed,

transparent and accountable manner. Under COVID-19 restrictions, public participation processes were required

to comply with GN No. 650 (05 June 2020) issued under Section 27(2) of the Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act

No. 57 of 2002) “Directions regarding measures to address, prevent and combat the spread of COVID-19 relating

to National Environmental Management Permits and Licences. The revised Directions applied until 18 August

2020, when South Africa moved to Alert Level 2.

Key steps (excluding public consultation) of the Scoping phase are summarised in Sections 3.3.1.3 to 3.3.1.6 below.

The public consultation process is summarised in Chapter 4.

3.3.1.2 Pre-application Meeting with PASA

A pre-application telephonic meeting was held with PASA on 08 April 2020. The aim of the meeting was to inform

PASA of TEPSA’s proposed applications and to obtain agreement on the way forward with its various application

processes. This also included discussions of the implications of COVID-19 on the public participation (see

Chapter 4).


25

Figure 3-1: Flow diagram showing the ESIA process.

Source: SLR

BID

1. Scoping Phase

Submit SR and I&AP comments to Competent

Authority

Compile Comments and Response Report

2. ESIA Phase

Initiate and finalise Specialist Reports

Compile Environmental and Social Impact (ESIA) Report

with Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) and

Closure Plan (if required)

Review I&AP comment and compile Comments

and Response Report

Finalise ESIA and submit to the Authority including specialist

reports, EMPr, comments report and closure plan (if required)

Notify Applicant

5 DAYS

Compile Scoping Report (SR)

106

DAYS

IF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES:

Notify Authority that ESIA to be

submitted in 156 DAYS of

receipt of application & explain.

OR

Extra

50

DAYS

I&AP & Authority review of ESIA

30 DAYS

Appeal Process

90 day Appeal process

74

DAYS

Submit Application Form and draft SR to

competent authority and distribute for public

comment

Pre-application Process

• BID distribution

• Specialist baseline input

WE ARE

HERE


26

3.3.1.3 Application Form for Environmental Authorisation

An “Application Form for Environmental Authorisation” was compiled and submitted to PASA at the same time

as releasing the DSR for review and comment (i.e. 19 June 2020).

3.3.1.4 National Screening Tool

In terms of Regulation 16 (1)(b)(v) of the EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended), a Screening Report has been

generated by the DEFF National Screening Tool during the pre-application process and is attached in

Appendix 4). The purpose of the Screening Tool is to identify the specialist assessments and level of specialist

input required in an ESIA process based on the latest available national and regional environmental and socio-

economic databases. Based on experience with other offshore projects, the Screening Tool is not yet efficiently

streamlined for appropriate use in the offshore environment. The specialist assessments identified by the

Screening Tool and the rationale for why they will or will not be undertaken in the ESIA phase is provided in

Table 3-2 below. The Screening Report was submitted to PASA with the Application Form for Environmental

Authorisation (refer to previous Section above).

Table 3-2: Specialist assessments identified by the National Screening Tool

Specialist Assessments Identified by the

National Screening Tool

Rationale for Inclusion/ Exclusion

Landscape/Visual Impact Assessment Excluded: No assessment will be undertaken as the proposed project is located more

than 80 km offshore, would entail a temporary installation and would not be visible to

any sensitive visual receptors.

Aquatic Biodiversity Impact Assessment Included: A Marine Ecology Impact Assessment will be undertaken in the ESIA phase

which will address impacts on all coastal and marine ecosystems and species. This will

include the impacts of drilling discharges and an oil spill based on modelling results. Marine Impact Assessment

Avian Impact Assessment

Defence Assessment Excluded: No assessment would be undertaken as the nearest edge of the proposed

new drill area is located more than 80 km offshore. While metocean monitoring and

CSEM may occur anywhere within the block, drilling would be undertaken at least 80

km from shore. No marine ammunition dumps are located in the block and none of

these activities would have an impact on national defence operations.

Noise Impact Assessment Included: A specialist Underwater Noise Modelling Study will be undertaken. The

findings of this report will be used to assess the impact of drilling noise on marine

fauna and commercial fishing as part of the Marine Ecology Impact Assessment and

Commercial Fisheries Impact Assessment.

Radioactivity Impact Assessment Excluded: No assessment will be undertaken as the target resources are not naturally

radioactive. Where radioactive sources are used during well testing, it would be of

minimal volumes and would be managed in line with the relevant legislation and

guidelines for the management of radioactive sources.

Traffic Impact Assessment Excluded: Impacts related to marine traffic will be assessed in the ESIA phase, but due

to the offshore location and relatively small impact area, no specific specialist

assessment is deemed necessary.

Geotechnical Assessment Excluded: No assessment will be undertaken as the proposed project is located more

than 80 km offshore and the exploration drilling project itself is deemed to be a

geotechnical investigation.


27

Specialist Assessments Identified by the

National Screening Tool

Rationale for Inclusion/ Exclusion

Health Impact Assessment Excluded: No Health Impact Assessment would be undertaken as the proposed

exploration activities are short term and located more than 80 km offshore, with only

a logistics base required onshore at the selected port/harbour and thus no health

impacts on third parties are not anticipated. In the event of an unplanned event the

response, and management of related health impacts, would be in terms of the

IPIECA-IOGP Good Practice Guide Series.

Socio-Economic Assessment Included: A Social Impact Assessment and a Commercial Fisheries Impact Assessment

will be undertaken in order to assess the potential impacts on the social environment,

specifically related to the potential impact on fisheries. These studies include broad

consideration of economic impacts of the proposed additional exploration activities.

Refer to Section 9.2.7 for further explanation on the economic scope of the Social

Impact Assessment.

Climate Impact Assessment Included: A Climate Change Impact Assessment will be undertaken in order to

establish a greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions inventory and will include

a climate change statement.

Excluded: No air quality impact assessment will be undertaken as the proposed

exploration activities would have limited contribution to air emissions and will not

occur in the vicinity of any sensitive receptors (i.e. onshore communities).

Ambient Air Quality Impact Assessment

Air Quality Impact Assessment

Seismicity Assessment Excluded: No assessment would be undertaken as the proposed exploration activities

are located more than 80 km offshore and there are no geotechnical-related issues

associated with the proposed project.

3.3.1.5 Baseline Information Collection

SLR commissioned a marine ecologist, fisheries specialist and a social scientist to provide input into the

description of the baseline affected environment and to aid with the identification of key issues and potential

impacts as part of the preparation of the Scoping Report during the pre-application phase. The establishment of

the baseline did not involve primary research, but included consultation of reference material (see Section 10 of

the Scoping Report) and Marine Mammal Observation data from the previous surveys in Block 11B/12B in 2019.

3.3.1.6 Compilation and Review of the DSR

The DSR was prepared in compliance with Appendix 2 of the EIA Regulations 2014 (see Table 3-3). The DSR was

distributed for a 60-day review and comment period from 19 June to 21 August 2020. The DSR aimed to present

all information in a clear and understandable format, suitable for easy interpretation by I&APs and authorities.

The review period provided an opportunity for I&APs to comment on the proposed project, the findings of the

Scoping phase and impact assessment approach. Steps undertaken as part of the Scoping Report review and

comment process are summarised in Chapter 4.

Table 3-3: Requirements of a Scoping Report in terms of the EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended)

No. Content of Scoping Report Completed

(Y/N or N/A)

Location in

report

2(a) (i & ii) Details and expertise of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) who

prepared the report.

Y Table 3-1

(b) The location of the activity, including: Y Section 6.4.3.1

(i) the 21 digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral land parcel; or N/A

(ii) where available, the physical address and farm name N/A


28


(Y/N or N/A)

Location in

report

(iii) where the required information in items (i) and (ii) is not available, the coordinates

of the boundary of the property or properties;

Y

(c) A plan which locates the proposed activity or activities applied for at an appropriate

scale, or, if it is:

Y Figure 1-1 and

Figure 6-4

(i) a linear activity, a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the proposed

activity or activities is to be undertaken; or

N/A

(ii) on land where the property has not been defined, the coordinates within which the

activity is to be undertaken.

N/A

(d) A description of the scope of the proposed activity, including: Y Table 2-1

(i) all listed and specified activities triggered;

(ii) a description of the activities to be undertaken, including associated structures and

infrastructure.

Y Chapter 6

(e) A description of the policy and legislative context within which the development is

proposed including an identification of all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial

tools, municipal development planning frameworks and instruments that are applicable

to this activity and are to be considered in the assessment process.

Y Chapter 0

(f) A motivation for the need and desirability for the proposed development including the

need and desirability of the activity in the context of the preferred location.

Y Chapter 5

(h) A full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred activity, site

and location within the site, including:

Y Section 6.4

(i) details of all the alternatives considered;

(ii) details of the public participation process undertaken in terms of regulation 41 of

the Regulations, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs;

Y Chapter 4 and

Appendix 3

(iii) a summary of the issues raised by interested and affected parties, and an indication

of the manner in which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for not

including them;

N Section 4.2.3

and Appendix

3.9

(iv) the environmental attributes associated with the alternatives focusing on the

geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects;

Y Alternatives:

Section 8.5

(v) the impacts and risks identified for each alternative, including the nature,

significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts, including

the degree to which these impacts

(aa) can be reversed;

(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and

(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated.

Y Section 8.3.4

(Impacts)

Alternatives to

be taken

forward in ESIA:

Section 8.5

(vi) the methodology used in determining and ranking the nature, significance,

consequences, extent, duration and probability of potential environmental impacts

and risks associated with the alternatives;

Y Section 9.2.9

(vii) positive and negative impacts that the proposed activity and alternatives will have

on the environment and on the community that may be affected focusing on the

geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects;

Y Section 8.3

(viii) the possible mitigation measures that could be applied and level of residual risk; Y Section 8.3.4

(ix) the outcome of the site selection matrix; Y Section 8.1

(x) if no alternatives, including alternative locations for the activity were investigated,

the motivation for not considering such; and

Y


29


(Y/N or N/A)

Location in

report

(xi) a concluding statement indicating the preferred alternatives, including preferred

location of the activity.

Y

(i) A plan of study for undertaking the environmental impact assessment process to be

undertaken, including:

Y Chapter 9

(i) a description of the alternatives to be considered and assessed within the preferred

site, including the option of not proceeding with the activity;

Section 8.5

(ii) a description of the aspects to be assessed as part of the environmental impact

assessment process;

Section 8.2

(iii) aspects to be assessed by specialists; Section 9.2

(iv) a description of the proposed method of assessing the environmental aspects,

including a description of the proposed method of assessing the environmental

aspects including aspects to be assessed by specialists;

Section 9.2.9

(v) a description of the proposed method of assessing duration and significance; Section 9.2.9

(vi) an indication of the stages at which the competent authority will be consulted; Chapters 3 & 4

(vii) particulars of the public participation process that will be conducted during the

environmental impact assessment process;

Chapter 4

(viii) a description of the tasks that will be undertaken as part of the environmental

impact assessment process; and

Chapter 9

(ix) identify suitable measures to avoid, reverse, mitigate or manage identified impacts

and to determine the extent of the residual risks that need to be managed and

monitored.

Chapter 8.3.4

(j) An undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation: Y

Appendix 1

(i) the correctness of the information provided in the report;

(ii) the inclusion of comments and inputs from stakeholders and interested and

affected parties; and

(iii) any information provided by the EAP to interested and affected parties and any

responses by the EAP to comments or inputs made by interested or affected parties.

(k) An undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation to the level of agreement

between the EAP and interested and affected parties on the plan of study for undertaking

the environmental impact assessment.

Y Appendix 1

(l) Where applicable, any specific information required by the competent authority. N/A -

(m) Any other matter required in terms of Section 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act. N/A -

3.3.1.7 Compilation of the FSR

This FSR complies with Appendix 2 of the EIA Regulations 2014 (see Table 3-3) and has been informed by

comments received on the DSR and issues raised during online meetings (one public webinar and two focus

group meetings). A summary of the issues and concerns raised is provided in Section 4.2.3 of this report. All

written submissions have been collated, and responded to, in a Comments and Responses Report (see

Appendix 3.9). The key issues that will be addressed and / or assessed in the next phase of the ESIA are

summarised in Section 8.3 of this report.


30

3.3.1.8 Completion of the Scoping Phase

As noted earlier, this report has been submitted to PASA for consideration and review. PASA will make a

recommendation on the acceptance or rejection of the report to DMRE, who will then make the final acceptance

or rejection decision. If the FSR is accepted, the application process will proceed to the ESIA phase.

3.3.2 ESIA Phase

3.3.2.1 Objectives

In accordance with Appendix 3 of GN No. R982 (as amended), “the objective of the environmental impact

assessment process is to, through a consultative process—

a) determine the policy and legislative context within which the activity is located and document and how the

proposed activity complies with and responds to the policy and legislative context;

b) describe the need and desirability of the proposed activity, including the need and desirability of the activity

in the context of the development footprint on the approved site as contemplated in the accepted scoping

report;

c) identify the location of the development footprint within the approved site as contemplated in the accepted

scoping report based on an impact and risk assessment process inclusive of cumulative impacts and a

ranking process of all the identified development footprint alternatives focusing on the geographical,

physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects of the environment;

d) determine the -

(i) nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts occurring to

inform identified preferred alternatives; and

(ii) degree to which these impacts—

(aa) can be reversed;

(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources, and

(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated;

e) identify the most ideal location for the activity within the development footprint of the approved site as

contemplated in the accepted scoping report based on the lowest level of environmental sensitivity

identified during the assessment;

f) identify, assess, and rank the impacts the activity will impose on the development footprint on the approved

site as contemplated in the accepted scoping report through the life of the activity;

g) identify suitable measures to avoid, manage or mitigate identified impacts; and

h) identify residual risks that need to be managed and monitored.”

Requirements of the ESIA and EMPr Reports are set out in Appendix 3 and 4 of the EIA Regulations 2014, as

amended, respectively. Chapter 6 of these Regulations set out the requirements to enable a reasonable

opportunity for potential or registered I&APs to comment on the application. The public participation process

for the ESIA phase of this study is described in Section 4.3 and 9.1 of this report.

3.3.2.2 Specialist Studies

Seven specialist studies will be commissioned to address the key issues that require further investigation and

detailed assessment. These include:

• Underwater Noise Modelling;


31

• Drilling Discharges Modelling;

• Oil Spill Modelling;

• Marine Ecology Impact Assessment;

• Commercial Fisheries Impact Assessment;

• Social Impact Assessment; and

• Climate Change Impact Assessment.

A list of the specialists and their details are provided in Table 3-1.

The technical modelling studies (namely noise, Drilling Discharges and Oil Spill) will predict potential outputs

from the proposed exploration well drilling and associated operations. These modelled outputs will be used by

the specialists to determine and assess impacts that may occur. An independent peer review of the Drilling

Discharges and Oil Spill Modelling studies will also be undertaken.

The other specialist studies will involve the use and review of data relevant to identifying and assessing

environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed exploration well drilling and associated

operations. These impacts will be assessed according to pre-defined rating scales (see Section 9.2.9). Specialists

will also recommend appropriate mitigation or optimisation measures to minimise potential impacts or enhance

potential benefits, respectively.

The terms of reference for all modelling and specialist studies, as well as the independent peer review, are

presented in Sections 9.2.1 to 9.2.9.

3.3.2.3 Integration and Assessment

The specialist information and other relevant information will be integrated into an ESIA Report, which will

include an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr). The specialist studies will be included as appendices

to the ESIA Report. This document will be released for a 30-day review and comment period. Steps that will be

undertaken as part of the I&AP review process are summarised in Section 4.3

After closure of the comment period, all comments received on the draft report will be incorporated and

responded to in a Comments and Responses Report. The draft report will then be updated to a final version, to

which the Comments and Responses Report will be appended and submitted to PASA for consideration and

review. After its review, PASA will provide a recommendation to DMRE on whether or not to grant an

Environmental Authorisation.

After DMRE issues its decision, all I&APs on the project database will be notified of the outcome of the application

and the reasons for the decision. A statutory appeal period in terms of the National Appeal Regulations, 2014

(GN No. R993) will follow the issuing of the decision. In terms of Regulation 4(1)(a), “an appellant must submit

an appeal to the appeal administrator, and a copy of the appeal to the applicant, any registered I&AP and any

organ of state with interest in the matter within 20 days from: a) the date that the notification of the decision for

an application for an EA (or water use licence) was sent to the registered I&APs by the applicant”.

3.4 MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE

As with most large, complex projects, refinement of the project design is an ongoing and sometimes lengthy

process. This ESIA considers the current “worst-case scenario” when assessing impacts and developing mitigation

measures. However, should the project design change after submission of the ESIA Report, a Management of

Change (MOC) Procedure will be implemented. The MOC Procedure applies to any changes to the project


32

description (i.e. approved activities), impact assessment and / or mitigation and monitoring measures described

in the ESIA Report and EMPr.

The level of change will determine the action to be taken to ensure the changes do not affect the Project’s ability

to meet environmental and social performance requirements outlined in the ESIA Report and EMPr, EA and other

relevant South African legislation (see Table 3-4). All future design changes will undergo an “Internal Screening”

exercise in order to determine whether the change triggers a ‘Level 1’ or a ‘Level 2’ change.

Table 3-4: Management of change procedure

Level of Change Description of Level of Change and Action

Level 1:

Minor Change

Where the change is largely deemed to be immaterial to the ESIA findings, the listed activities that

were applied for are still relevant and it does not affect the Project’s ability to meet environmental

and social performance requirements outlined in the ESIA Report and EMPr.

Assuming the project is approved by DMRE, compliance with the EA and EMPr would need to be

externally audited in line with the frequency specified in the EA. As part of these external audits, the

relevance of the EMPr will be reviewed and amendments proposed where necessary.

These changes and their evaluation should be communicated to PASA and DMRE for information

purposes and the EMPr revised where necessary (in terms of Regulation 35 of the EIA Regulations

2014, as amended).

• In terms of Regulation 36(1), where an amendment is required to the impact management

actions of an EMPr, such amendments may immediately be affected by the holder and reflected

in the next environmental audit report.

• In terms of Regulation 36(2), where an amendment to the impact management outcomes of an

EMPr is required before an audit is undertaken in terms of the environmental authorisation, an

EMPr may be amended on application by the holder of the environmental authorisation in terms

of Regulation 37.

In terms of Regulation 29, an Environmental Authorisation may be amended if the amendment will

not change the scope of a valid environmental authorisation, nor increase the level or nature of the

impact, which impact was initially assessed and considered when application was made for an

environmental authorisation.

Level 2:

Significant Change

Where a future change or upgrade would lead to a significant departure from the base-case or a key

aspect of it such that the existing ESIA Report or EMPr does not adequately address potential impacts

or require additional mitigation. This would imply that either a new listed activity(s) is triggered, or

the scope of an approved activity would change (Part 2 amendment in terms of Regulation 31 of the

EIA Regulations 2014, as amended).

• If the change, on its own, constitutes a listed or specified activity, then a new Application for

Environmental Authorisation would be required.

• If a Part 2 amendment process is required, this ESIA Report and EMPr should be updated through

an amendment application in terms of NEMA and Sections 31 and 37 of the EIA Regulations 2014

(as amended), and submitted to PASA and DMRE for review and decision.

esia approach and process - slr consulting chap3.pdf · total e & p south africa b.v. slr...

Documents