news

Pretoria — Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa has called on the public to comment on the department’s intention to include certain land as part of the country’s eight national parks.

Molewa last week published for public comment the notice in the government gazette under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act.

The eight national parks affected by the notice include the Tankwa Karoo, Camdeboo, Mountain Zebra, Namaqua, West Coast, Karoo, Table Mountain and Addo Elephant National Parks.

The South African National Parks (SANParks) obtained the approval from the former Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk to acquire land for inclusion in the eight national parks listed above.

Consequently, SANParks acquired the land to be part of the national parks listed above and concluded a Notarial Lease Agreement.

The land to be included is as follows:

– The land, intended to be part of the Tankwa Karoo National Park, includes portions 1 of the farms Drie Fontein No.8, Leeuw Kloof No.114 and Lange Kloof No.60. The remainder of the farms, Mosquito Kolk No.10, Paarde Kloof No.113 and Leeuw No.114 as well as the farm Paarde Kraal No.4, portion 2 of Leeuw Kloof No.114 and portion 4 of Kleinfontein will also form part of the Tankwa Karoo National Park, 22 501.40ha.

– The Karoo National Park is intended to include portions 5, 6 and the remainder of the farm Klipplaats Fontein No.210 and portions 2 of the farms Afsaal No.302 and Alwynsgat No.187 as well as portion 5 of the farm Hendriks Kraal No.298, portion 4 of the farm Grootfontein No.180, portion 10 of the farm Brandewyns Ghat No.214, the remainder of the farm Brand Kraal No.209 and farm No.202, 10 917.31ha.

– Camdeboo National Park is intended to include farms Nos. 271-272 and Annex Winterhoek No.336, the remainders of Winterhoek No.269 and Annex Corndale No.335, portion 3 of Pienaars Rivier No.208 and portion 4 of Grasrand No.334, 4 489.71ha.

– Land intended to form part of Mountain Zebra National Park include farms No.372 and Toekoms No.567, 3 236.15ha.

– The West Coast National Park is intended to include the remainders of the farms Groote Fontyn No.305 and of portion 3 of Elandsfontyn No.349, 3 361.75ha.

– Land intended to form part of the Namaqua National Park comprise of the remainder of portion 1 of the farm Kanoep No.491 and the remainder of the farms Annex Kanoep No.490 as well as Avontuur No.488 and Diknek No.486, portion 1 of the farm Diknek No.486, portion 7 of the farm Kwoap No.494 and the farm Ghaams No. 492, 9 868.17ha.

– Land intended to form part of the Table Mountain National Park comprise of Erf No. 557 Sea Point East, remainder of portion 10 (Kompanjiestuin) (a portion of portion 2) of farm Kommetjie Estate No. 948 and remaining extent of the farm Olifantsbosch No. 1056 as well as remainder of Erf 90197 and Erf 90239 Cape Town at Kalk Bay, 357mý.

– Addo Elephant National Park is intended to include Portion 305 and 279 of the farm Strathsomers Estate No. 42, Farm No. 416 and Portion 2 of the farm Bloukrans No. 23 as well as portion 8 ( a portion of portion 5) of the farm Coerney, 165.91ha.

Adhering to the consultation process, approval will be sought from the Ministers of Public Works, Rural Development and Land Reform, Transport and Mineral Resources.

Where applicable, the MECs of Local Government, MEC of Environment and Nature Conservation in the Northern Cape, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning in the Western Cape, MEC of Economic Development, Environment Affairs and Tourism in the Eastern Cape and affected Mayors in the Provinces will also be invited to indicate whether they concur or not with the proposed declaration of listed land.

Interested and affected parties are invited to submit written comments to the minister within 60 days of publication of the notice in the Gazette. Comments received after 60 days will not be considered.

Written comments or inputs can be delivered by hand, mail, email or telefax transmission.

Submissions by post to can be directed to: The Director-General: Environmental Affairs, Attention: Ms S Jhupsee. Private Bag X447, Pretoria, 0001 or by fax to: 012 322 7114 or 012 320 1243 or by email to smampe@environment.gov.za or hand delivered at: 315 Pretorius Street, corner Pretorius and Van Der Walt streets, Fedsure Forum Building, 2nd Floor, North Tower.

Only a week after the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the SA Ostrich Business Chamber and the EU met to restore credibility to the South African ostrich meat industry, South Africa’s ostrich exports to the EU was dealt a blow when six birds tested positive for avian influenza in Oudtshoorn in the Klein Karoo, Business Report says.

Last year, Ostrich meat exports to Europe were banned as well. Before this ban, exports stood at R108 million.

Business Day reported that a fresh positive test result for the H5N2 avian flu virus in the Klein Karoo has dashed hope the industry could resume trade this month with the European Union (EU), its biggest ostrich export market. Positive results were found on a farm near De Rust, east of Oudtshoorn, in an area that had previously been virus-free. South African Ostrich Business Chamber interim CEO Piet Kleyn said yesterday (Tuesday) that the test result came after the eighth round of tests in February since the virus was first detected on a farm near Oudtshoorn in April last year.

The Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries spokesman Selby Bokaba told Business Report that experts at the workshop believed that the industry had to be restructured for sustainability. However, the Western Cape Department of Agriculture said it would need about a year to put in place recommendations made by an EU delegation to South Africa, including restricting the birds’ movements and disinfecting trucks to abattoirs.

Why Shell’s Econometrix report is flawed (Scepticism over Shell’s Karoo gas report, March 7). The report has three major flaws:

— It doesn’t indicate how it came to a well-head price of $8 per million cubic feet (MCF), which is not the same as end-user price. The methodology for arriving at this number is rather mysterious because we don’t know whether it includes the cost of environmental mitigation, and other costs. This needs unpacking and the report is not transparent as to how the well-head cost is arrived at. The entire edifice of the Shell report sits on the basic assumptions made about well-head and other costs.

— Even if we assume a well-head price of $8/MCF as being reasonable, it’s only half of the story. This is really the nub of the problem and at the heart of the report’s exaggerated figures. The study does not take into account infrastructure development costs and surcharges for distribution. These costs would be an add-on to the $8 and we would arrive at a true end-user cost. These costs are missing. These costs will have to be defrayed either by consumers or the government. This is why the report is disingenuous and deceptive. It describes well Shell’s handsome turnover but says little about what the end user will pay or suffer. These end-user figures will tell us, at certain price ranges for different uses of gas, the level of market absorption and the rate at which people will switch to gas. If it is cheaper we will possibly get greater market penetration and local beneficiation. If it is more, the market will be undeveloped compared with other energy sources.

— This leads us to the third problem with the report. It is likely that if the price is not right we will need very long lead times for a domestic shale market to develop, because somebody has to outlay huge amounts of capital for infrastructure and storage for gas, Shell and other gas producers will feel all the incentive to export the gas. Guess what will happen next if we have a very large reserve: lots of dollars will flow, the rand will strengthen and you can be sure our other exports and jobs will be destroyed. We will catch the Royal Dutch disease, to use the pun.

The report tells us more about Shell’s and other producers’ windfalls, but for local beneficiation the report is an analytical mess, if not a scandal.

Saliem Fakir

Head of Living Planet Unit, WWF-SA

If you want to email this page to more than one person, just put a semicolon “;” between the email addresses.

CONTACT US | ABOUT US | SEND US NEWS | ADVERTISING RATES |

moc.ytinummoczib@selas | +27 (0)21 680 3500 | +27 (0)11 612 3003

ADSL Web hosting proudly provided by Afrihost. All rights reserved. © 2012. Bizcommunity.com, its sponsors, contributors and advertisers disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, injury or expense that might arise from the use of, or reliance upon, the services contained herein. Privacy policy, Terms of Use, PAIA.

ENERGY giant Shell has moved to punt the economic benefits of shale gas in SA, by commissioning a new study on the subject.

However, not everyone is convinced by the report, produced by Econometrix and released last Friday.

Among its findings is that extracting just a fraction of the estimated shale gas resources in the southern Karoo would contribute R35bn-R90bn to government revenue and generate up to 700000 permanent jobs over 25 years.

“The possible economic impact of shale gas development in the Karoo is undeniable,” Econometrix director Tony Twine says.

“Developments downstream, and induced demand from the income generated by gas finds representing only 4% and 10% of the suspected reserve, could generate massive contributions to GDP (gross domestic product) and create many hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

Econometrix also says the report is intended to provide an insight into the economic opportunities that may arise from gas in the Karoo. Estimates are that the Karoo’s shale gas reserves stand at 450-trillion cubic feet, making it the fifth-largest shale gas field in the world.

“This is big stuff in terms of contribution to GDP, in terms of employment potential. Even if the gas finds turn out to be a lot smaller than the estimate … we are talking about a mighty big fish,” he says.

The US Energy Information Administration forecasts that shale gas will account for 47% of US gas production by 2035.

But sceptics abound.

A few days after publication of the report, opponents of hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking”, are dismissing it.

“The report has clearly been commissioned by Shell, which already calls its independence into question. I also have a great problem with the report of two weeks ago from Ipsos Markinor, which showed 85% of South Africans were in favour of fracking, which was also sponsored by Shell,” says Jonathan Deal, chairman of the Treasure the Karoo Action Group.

“I am sceptical of anything that is published by oil and industry anywhere that promotes their own interests. They have a history of publishing statistics that suit theoretical objectives which frequently do not represent the true picture.”

There is no scientific consensus on shale gas mining. In the US, a debate is raging. Teams of scientist are pitted against each other, contesting each other’s results, says Mr Deal.

“There is no consensus yet on the employment figures in terms of the jobs created and jobs destroyed, where you have agricultural and tourism jobs replaced by mining and drilling jobs,” he says. There is also no reliable information on how much gas could be extracted by fracking, Mr Deal says.

“The average gas well yields in the US are depleting so fast that from full yield on its first day, within 36 to 48 months it is offering subeconomic yields.”

The Econometrix report omits mention of possible environmental costs, Mr Deal says.

Peet du Plooy of Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies (TIPS), a research institute, is sceptical about the job estimates in the report.

“It is a well-established fact that renewable energy provides more jobs per unit of capacity, unit of energy or unit of investment than any other form of electricity generation. Recent estimates by the Industrial Development Corporation, Development Bank of Southern Africa and TIPS put the total job creation potential for renewables over the long term (by 2025) at just under 120000 jobs.

“Coal mining, which is much more labour-intensive than ‘mining’ gas, employs around 50000 people, while one of Eskom’s giant coal power stations employs only 600-800 people. To arrive at 700000 jobs — more people than are employed in the entire mining sector — the authors would have had to be very liberal in their assumptions and also included indirect and induced jobs.”

Mr du Plooy says it would have been tough for such a report to look into externality costs — better understood as risk factors. “For shale gas we are talking about risk — uncertainty regarding costs — rather than cost. If shale gas could be safely extracted it would have lower externality costs in carbon, sulphur and particulate emissions than coal or oil, but higher externality costs (at least in terms of these factors) than renewable energy or nuclear. It would have a lower externalised cost in water use than coal, oil, unsustainable biofuels or solar thermal energy, but worse water costs than nuclear, wind or solar photovoltaic energy.

“How much worse or better is a matter of speculation and depends also on how the shale gas is applied, such as whether it is used to substitute coal-based electricity or coal-or oil-based liquid fuel,” he says.

Given that the report was commissioned, any speculation regarding externality costs suffers from a lack of credibility, he says. On the contribution to GDP, Mr du Plooy says the effect of shale gas on competitor industries such as coal should be considered. “Unless all the shale gas is exported, it will replace other industries like coal, leading to a lower net impact on GDP.”

He says the report points to a lack of access to electricity as a driver for exploiting shale gas. “This lack of access concerns mostly rural households, and for them the issue is a lack of access to the grid. Electricity from shale gas still faces the same challenge.”

With Nicky Smith

About 73% of South Africans were in favour of exploring whether natural gas was present in the Karoo and the same proportion would be in favour of gas extraction, a survey showed on Monday.

An opinion poll – conducted by market researcher Ipsos on behalf of Shell – found that most adult South Africans were unaware of the potential exploration for natural gas in the Karoo. But, when introduced to the concept, the majority were in favour of determining the presence of natural gas in the basin.

Ipsos polled 2 006 South Africans on exploration for natural gas, using face-to-face interviews, to allow the interviewers to describe, inform and question respondents on shale gas, the process of hydraulic fracturing, their views on Shell and their hopes for South Africa.

“Respondents clearly desire more information. They want to know if there is gas, how it will benefit them and what the impact will be,” Ipsos director of public affairs Mari Harris said.

Shell has applied for permission to explore for shale gas in the Karoo using hydraulic fracturing. The process involves forcing a mixture of 99% water and sand, with 1% chemicals into shale formations deep underground to release natural gas.

The Treasure the Karoo Action Group believes that hydraulic fracturing would harm the environment.

The poll found 86% of South Africans were unaware of the possible exploration for natural gas in the Karoo and only 12% indicated that they had heard the term ‘hydraulic fracturing’ before.

Awareness by word of mouth is higher among Karoo residents than among those living in other parts of the country, an indication of the greater relevance of shale gas exploration and hydraulic fracturing for people living in this area.

However, in spite of the very low awareness, when asked, more than seven in every ten adult South Africans, or 73% were in favour of determining the presence of natural gas in the Karoo. If natural gas were proven to be present in the Karoo, the same proportion of residents would be in favour of gas extraction.

However, if shale gas was found, the proportion of those who were strongly in favour for extraction increased from 39%, to 45%, while the proportion of those in opposition decreased to 21%, with a group of 6% now uncertain as to how they feel about the issue.

After the ideas of supporters of hydraulic fracturing were presented, about seven in every ten, or 69% adult South Africans indicated that they were still in favour of gas exploration. After hearing views expressed by critics of the hydraulic fracturing process, the support for gas exploration reduced marginally to about 66% of the population.

The study highlighted that job security and job creation remain very important issues in South Africa and 54% indicated that they would like more information on how gas exploration will benefit economic development and create jobs.

Regarding infrastructure development, four out of every ten, or 39% want information about how it will improve the supply of and access to electricity.

More information about the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing was important to 41% and a third would like to know how clean burning natural gas would be.
 

Sanlam

Get Sanlam’s view on the Budget Speech

It was Fugard’s writings that first enticed me to experience that most pleasant of Karoo outings: walking through a small village’s deserted streets in the “late frost-sharp hour”, looking to the trees for “companionship”.

“The sense of them alive and awake, their huge black presences magnified still further by faint starlight, is quite awesome.”

So, it was reminiscing of the acacia, ash and pepper-treed streets of my previous hometown (Aberdeen) in the Karoo that I set off with my girlfriend down the oak avenues of Greyton, late on a Friday night.

Hand in hand, we wandered the dirt tracks, accompanied by soft green verges, post and rail fences and the tinkling of the stream on our right. With trails of steam surrounding his head, a friendly horse whinnied a greeting to us as we passed. But it was the sky and its firmament of stars, seen through the network of naked oak-tree branches, that got most of our attention. Even leafless, these ponderous old giants evoke a stout vitality and a brooding sense of wisdom.

It seems that oaks were planted in Greyton as early as 1795 by Martin Theunissen, owner of the farm Weltevrede. Apparently he received the saplings from the neighbouring mission village of Genadendal, who in turn received them from the Castle in Cape Town to decorate their “werf”. With oak trees planted along the road all the way up to his front door, it is thought that Theunissen probably copied the example set by the Cloetes of Groot Constantia.

The next morning, we woke with a bang. Well, technically we were already awake, but probably not fully compos mentis when I decided to light the gas fire to ward off the chill. The plan was to thaw out in front of the hearth with a cup of coffee before unleashing ourselves on Greyton’s extensive and eclectic range of shops and eateries.

I’d followed the instructions carefully, but after twiddling the relevant knobs, nothing happened. I was giving the lighting procedure a third try, when “Whum!”, the fire exploded into life with the force of a napalm bomb and my heart lodged firmly in my throat. I made a mental note to have one less cappuccino on our high-street excursion.

One of the first shops we visited was A Little Bizarre – trinkets and treasures it advertised. We came away with some exotic eastern stockings, some beautiful costume jewellery and armloads of incense. Next was The Inside Story, with antiques, collectables, décor items and artworks. We got talking to the owner, Carol Gibbs, veteran shopkeeper, artist and raconteur, and were fascinated by her stories of her recent travels to the East. She said she’d decided one day: “I’m not getting any younger, I’m going to blow my pension and travel India.” And, judging from the glint in her eye and her effervescent demeanor, she made the right decision.

Paul Leger’s Snob’s Guide to Budget Getaways talks of the Oak and Vigne restaurant as “the flavour of the day amongst the Greyton trendset”. He may be right, but I think of it as a charming place to sit under the oaks and watch the passing parade on a summer’s day; or to lunch on fine food in front of the fire inside during winter.

Choosing the latter, we snuggled up near the fire and drank cappuccinos with whisky, a perfect way to unwind after a morning of browsing and shopping in this one-of-a-kind Overberg village.

Some think Greyton is too chichi for a country village, that it’s lost its authenticity. I call it the very best of both worlds.

If you go…

Where it is: Francolin Cottage is at 30 Caledon Street in Greyton. Turn right off the main road at the first four-way stop.

What it has:  The quaint cottage has two en-suite bedrooms, one with a king-sized bed and the other with two singles. It’s equipped for self-catering, and has a braai area and garden with a stream running through it, plus a pool.

Why go there: To relax with your loved ones in the quiet country surrounds, though there are shopping and gourmet eat-out options galore. For the adventurous, there are mountain-biking and cycling, walking and hiking trails (you can do the Boesmanskloof trail as a one- or two-day outing), horse-riding, 4×4 trails, plus bowls and tennis facilities.

The food: Self-catering but “basket breakfasts” and other home-cooked meals available on request.

Rates: R950 for the first two adults and R150 per adult, or R100 per child thereafter.

Contact: Call Jéan and Mary Faure on 0283140571, visit www.francolincottage.co.za or e-mail info@francolincottage.co.za.