South Africa’s gas potential is currently locked up, partly because of legal challenges initiated by environmental activist groups that halted projects to the tune of USD1.6 billion, but also due to the inability of all parties involved to come to an agreement.
By NJ Ayuk*
It is not an exaggeration to say that South Africa’s offshore gas discoveries offer up a potential economic transformation for the country that would be on par with Guyana’s oil-driven boom or Suriname’s emerging energy sector.
Estimates for the Luiperd-Brulpadda gas-condensate project, in Block 11B/12B off South Africa’s southern coast, gauge its holdings at 3.4 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas and 192 million barrels of gas condensate. Production at this site would equate to thousands of jobs and a revitalization of regions like Mossel Bay, where South Africa’s gas-to-liquids refinery once fueled local employment and industry before declining production forced cutbacks.
Unfortunately, this could all be just wishful thinking, as TotalEnergies’ exit from this project in 2024 revealed a critical barrier.
South Africa’s gas potential is currently locked up, partly because of legal challenges initiated by environmental activist groups that halted projects to the tune of USD1.6 billion, but also due to the inability of all parties involved to come to an agreement on gas purchase pricing.
The GTL Solution
A gas-to-liquids (GTL) strategy — one that links prices to liquefied natural gas (LNG) spot markets and includes meaningful community engagement — would help balance the needs of upstream investors, downstream users, and the coastal communities while delivering sustainable growth for the rest of the nation.
The gas pricing dilemma is the main obstacle.
Upstream companies like TotalEnergies demand dollar-based contracts to mitigate currency risk and ensure returns on their substantial exploration investments. The South African government is justifiably wary of dollar-denominated agreements and would prefer rand-based prices to protect local consumers and maintain affordability. The impasse TotalEnergies encountered on this issue is one of the factors behind their withdrawal from Block 11B/12B, despite their promising, hard-won discoveries at the site.
The domestic market complicates the situation even further.
Electricity producers require low gas prices, as they operate on slim margins once carbon costs are accounted for. Upstream operators, on the other hand, need to collect higher prices to justify the development of their capital-intensive deepwater projects. Meanwhile, the global LNG market is expected to remain saturated for the next three to five years, making the export of gas in the form of LNG a less competitive option for now. Without a pricing compromise, South Africa’s gas remains untapped, leaving behind all the profit and opportunity it represents.
A GTL strategy offers a multifaceted solution, however. By revitalizing the PetroSA GTL facility in Mossel Bay and converting natural gas into high-value liquid fuels like diesel and kerosene on site, South Africa could cut its reliance on fuel imports, strengthen its energy security, and extend employment opportunities to thousands of workers.
The precedent is clear: In Suriname, TotalEnergies’ GranMorgu deepwater project is set to generate 6,000 local jobs and inject at least USD1 billion into the economy. A similar initiative at the dormant Mossel Bay facility could transform South Africa’s southern coast, providing the government with fresh revenue and wider economic stability.
This is not mere optimism; this gameplan would be a practical means of leveraging existing infrastructure to drive regional development. But, once again, the economic viability of a GTL strategy as a solution for South African gas production hinges on securing a gas pricing agreement that satisfies the needs of both producers and consumers.
To resolve this pricing stalemate, South Africa should adopt a formula that ties the gas purchase price to the global LNG spot price, minus a percentage to reflect the absence of liquefaction and transportation costs. This approach would allow upstream companies to receive dollar-based payments, satisfying their financial requirements while aligning with the inherent shifts in the global market. Downstream, power producers and GTL operators would enjoy the affordability of discounted pricing, making projects economically feasible at both ends of the supply chain.
Furthermore, the government could incentivize GTL development through tax breaks, infrastructure subsidies, or public-private partnerships, so the economic benefits of these projects would be more likely to outweigh the initial costs. This pricing model would be a fair compromise that avoids the pitfalls of rand-based contracts and meets the needs of all stakeholders.
Additional Roadblocks
Overcoming environmental opposition is another critical step toward progress in gas development, and overlooking community engagement in this regard only empowers non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to challenge projects in court. Petroleum Agency SA’s community awareness campaigns, which educate locals about the benefits and risks of gas development, offer a model for improvement in this area. Expanding such efforts to include early and transparent engagement in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process would help build trust and reduce grounds for legal action.
Town hall meetings and accessible EIA summaries would be a means of highlighting the economic benefits of a GTL strategy. By involving communities as stakeholders, the government and industry can work together to demonstrate that gas development can create shared prosperity.
The implementation of a GTL strategy is itself another way of addressing the legal pushback brought against South African exploration projects. Liquid fuels produced domestically reduce emissions by avoiding long-distance shipping, meaning that a GTL strategy is already in alignment with environmental goals from the start. Emphasizing the lower carbon footprint of a GTL operation would go a long way in gaining public approval of the project, but the government must still work to speed up the permitting process by establishing clear, time-bound guidelines for EIAs and consultations. Mechanisms should also be put in place to limit repetitive, post-approval legal challenges and allow projects to proceed without endless litigation.
A dedicated task force of industry, government, and local representatives would strengthen South Africa’s negotiating power and help hold projects accountable to environmental and social standards.
A Collaborative Path Forward
Extracting and monetizing the gas resources held in Block 11B/12B and elsewhere could be a course-correcting game-changer for South Africa, but doing so to the greatest possible benefit requires bold, collaborative action. For South Africa to truly benefit from its gas resources, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration must move beyond the traditional focus on coal and mining, prioritize gas development, and embrace the potential of a GTL strategy.
By reviving the defunct Mossel Bay GTL facility and implementing a pricing model tied to LNG spot prices, the government can satisfy the needs of both upstream and downstream stakeholders while creating jobs for South Africans and reducing their dependency on imports. Simplifying the permit process and expanding community engagement would address environmental concerns so that projects can move forward without unnecessary delays or lawsuits.
With decisive leadership and a commitment to balance, South Africa can transform its gas potential into a catalyst for sustainable growth and secure a prosperous future, not just for the industry, but for the nation as a whole.
*NJ Ayuk is Executive Chairman of the African Energy Chamber
