Yesterday saw two votes of no-confidence discussed in South Africa’s Parliament, one against President Ramaphosa himself and the other against his Cabinet, with both ending unsuccessfully, one on procedural grounds and one failing to pass a sitting vote.



Attempted votes of no-confidence in South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and his cabinet ended in chaos yesterday, with speaker of Parliament Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula withdrawing one motion from the order paper and another failing to pass a vote amidst what turned out to be a tumultuous seating of the country’s National Assembly in Cape Town.&nbsp;



The African Transformation Movement (ATM) had lodged a vote against President Ramaphosa, alleging that since he came to power, government’s irregular spending and state-owned entity corruption had increased, with ATM having sought a secret ballot. ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula declined to have the party’s motion against Ramaphosa move forward, as the party is still attempting to obtain the ability for the vote to be performed by secret ballot through the courts.&nbsp;&nbsp;



“No Member of Parliament may reflect on any case [before the court],” said Zungula during the Parliamentary session. “There is ongoing litigation… There is no way in which we can still proceed with this vote.” &nbsp;



The speaker ruled that the matter would not be proceeded on in Parliament, but instead be pushed to the programming committee to rule on whether it should proceed. National Assembly’s programming committee threw out ATM’s motion this morning, enabling other parties to introduce further motions, but as of now is removed from the Parliamentary roll.&nbsp;



The drama of the day was further magnified by a no-confidence motion in the Cabinet filed by major opposition party the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) John Steenhuisen, citing corruption and lack of energy reform as primary motivations. Several dozen DA members protested outside of the Parliament building, demonstrating in support of the motion.&nbsp;



Steenhuisen had earlier urged MPs to put South Africa first during the vote, stating “Not one of these ministers here would last a day in the private sector, where results matter and accountability is still a thing.”&nbsp;



Another main opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), found themselves unlikely allies with the DA, voting for the motion alongside the United Democratic Movement (UDM), Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) and the ATM.&nbsp;



&nbsp; Despite recent factional battles within factions of the African National Congress (ANC) in parliament, particularly between pro-Ramaphosa and Radical Economic Transformation (RET) factions, ANC MPs were almost universal in voting down the motion, summarily defeating it.&nbsp;&nbsp;



&#8220;Honourable members, the outcomes are as follows,” concluded Deputy Speaker Lechesa Tsenoli. “There’s one abstention, 131 yes, and 231 no. The motion is therefore not agreed to.&#8221;&nbsp;



With two strong votes of no confidence being discussed, both in President Ramaphosa and his Cabinet, as well as yesterday’s Parliamentary session devolving at times into conflict and confusion, Ramaphosa was unfazed. When pressed yesterday on whether he was concerned about the motions during a speech at the 17th National Union of Mineworkers (NUMSA) national congress, Ramaphosa responded: “I am not a Member of Parliament and in Parliament they do all manner of things and I am an observer.”&nbsp;

Interview with South Africa’s President Ramaphosa

South Africa’s ANC Sees Off Motion Of No Confidence  

Each year some people have the privilege of doing a political tour of South Africa. From Nkandla, President Jacob Zuma’s home in KwaZulu-Natal, through Johannesburg’s Constitutional Court, Stock Market, Soweto and other attractions to Parliament in the Cape, Hout Bay’s squatter camp and the lovely wine farms.
The tour’s emphasis is on politics and the political people of the country. They meet the players in politics, business, the media, health and education. Fortunately for us, former president Thabo Mbeki agreed to meet us at his Foundation.
Mbeki was in a wonderful mood, sharing his stories, answering our questions, asking a few of his own. Most fascinating for me was his answer when asked to explain why his liberation party moved away from nationalizing mines and banks.
“Well, we went to Cuba in 1986, and you know before our meeting Fidel Castro asked us to bring a copy of the Freedom Charter with us. But he asked it three times, three times!”
“We asked ourselves, we heard you the first time, why ask again?”
“He then told us when we saw him – with the document – that the government Cuban rum is called Cuban Club, and that it is owned by Cuba, it is the best rum, but does not do as well as Bacardi. The owners of Bacardi left Cuba in a hurry but had to leave the vats.”
“Fidel then said, ‘Now you know good rum is made by mixing old rum with new, but Bacardi left in a hurry, taking everything but leaving the old vats. Yet they set up in America and sold a completely new rum. It was not great, it lacked the Bacardi flavor, it was all new and all they had was the name,’ he told us.”
But it was enough.
“‘So,’ said Fidel, ‘we quickly went to France and Europe and registered the names of Cohibas and other cigars, so if those companies also left we would still have their names. ‘Now tell me, ‘ Fidel said, ‘how many mining engineers do you have in the ANC?’”
“We looked at each other and said we did not know if we have any, probably none at that time (1992).”
“Then he said that if we took over Anglo American and nationalized them, we would have to ask them to do the mining, to manage it and run the mines because we could not, and they would then deliberately mine badly, because they would be angry that they had been nationalized. ‘Rather wait a bit,’ Fidel told us, ‘then in 15 years or so you can start taking over as you develop the capacity.’”
“It made sense, so we went back and convinced our people.”
I asked why Mandela, when he first came out of jail, in his first speech in Cape Town, said mines and banks would be nationalized?
“When Mandela was released it was a bad mistake of ours. We had been in talks with government and they had agreed they would give us nine or 10 days’ notice before releasing him, they would call my home with a code name and message, like ‘it is going to rain on Sunday November 1’ and we would have time to prepare.”
“But I was away, with Oliver Tambo in London, so when Zanele (Mbeki’s wife) was called by this strange person with a fairly innocuous message for me she waited a few days and then told the wife of Oliver Tambo to tell me the message. His wife also waited a few days and then said to him ‘Oh, tell Thabo somebody called Zanele to say it is going to rain on Sunday November 1.’”
“I got the message and thought nothing of it. I had forgotten what that meant. Me, I made that mistake… Later I suddenly remembered and realized, it was our code agreed with the South African government, but by then it was the day before his release.”
“We quickly tried to write a speech but failed and those inside South Africa wrote the speech, but they had not yet been told how we had changed our minds on nationalizing the mines and banks despite what it said in the Freedom Charter. So that’s why Mandela said what he said.”
I was aghast. I had written several times to say it was at Davos that the first democratic president had changed policy on nationalization. Mbeki laughed.
“Davos being the place he changed his mind is really just one of many stories&#8230;”

Nationalization Is A  Rum Deal

<h4>What the judges said</h4>
&#8220;We feel Thuli Mandonsela is a woman of substance who has inspired many people across Africa with her stand for the rule of law and against corruption. In seven years of hard work, she has spoken truth to power and helped keep the people running her country accountable. A difficult job she carried out with professionalism and integrity.&#8221;
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-28699 aligncenter" src="http://www.forbesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_5398.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" srcset="https://cms.forbesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_5398.jpg 1024w, https://cms.forbesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_5398-300x200.jpg 300w, https://cms.forbesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_5398-600x400.jpg 600w, https://cms.forbesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_5398-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
Her polite, welcoming, voice would make anyone feel at home. It is strange to see Thuli Madonsela – the towering advocate woman who has taken flak from politicians for years – at home, relaxed and flanked by her family. She ushers me into the lounge. We sit next to an open patio door, facing a cluster of colorful trees, with a welcome breeze easing this sweltering summer’s day. Every bit of furniture matches her unpretentious nature. African paintings on the walls; each ornament holds a story about her travels across the continent.
She looks good for a person who has just left office, in her own words, followed by missiles. Her biggest case so far has caused ructions – the so-called state capture report. She was investigating allegations made by South Africa’s Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas that he was a offered the job of Finance Minister by the billionaire Gupta family that has opened a can of worms.
The offer came, it is alleged, just before President Jacob Zuma fired the then Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene in December 2015. When Jonas blew the whistle, former member of parliament Vytjie Mentor also alleged she was offered a cabinet post by brothers Ajay, Atul and Rajesh Gupta. The family has businesses, from coal mines to media companies, and were in partnership with President Zuma’s son. Former Government Communications and Information Systems head Themba Maseko also claimed the family unsuccessfully tried to bully him to put government advertising to their newspaper.
This report was one of the last acts in Madonsela’s seven turbulent years of speaking truth to power that took nerves of steel.
Her office, in the last days, was like a house of madness, she says. There were complaints to be investigated, last-minute interviews and many loose ends from multiple investigations.
On the very last day, she and her team worked through the night in an atmosphere leavened by banter and jokes.
“It was exhilarating, as a result I never really had the opportunity to feel sad about seeing my office for the last time because there was so much adrenaline, so much to be done and it was all done,” she says.
“Then there were curve balls of having being either sued or spending time with the lawyers. On the outside I was pretty calm but on the inside I would be thinking I have three hours to complete this document but these other things were coming, so I did feel some of the pressure. There was a bit of noise on the outside but the team that I worked closely with also stayed calm. I think the only time I saw some cracks was when we were told the president has lodged an application for an interdict and they thought it was the end of the road. I had anticipated these difficulties with some of the seniors, so when the younger ones got panicky about life overtaking the good work done, we didn’t panic. We told them to calm down and continue with the report as if they haven’t heard any news.”
Zuma had applied for a court interdict to stop the report’s release, saying he wasn’t given enough chance to respond. He also accused Madonsela of saying the report was not final, implying he was misled. Zuma withdrew the court challenge on the day of the hearing.
“I’ve never said it was not a final report. All in writing, I have always promised to issue two reports. Phase one would cover whatever we knew then and what should be done to fix it. It was going to look at ministerial appointments, Mentor and Jonas’ allegations. It would look at the president’s liability because of the 30-day requirement. Phase two would be on the Catholic Bishop’s request to look into Gupta-related companies and all licenses and related matter,” explains Madonsela
Madonsela’s report has left a trail of tears and paper leading to murky business dealings that the Gupta family denies.
“I recommended a commission of enquiry because this investigation cuts across ministries, the legislator, the executive and go into state-owned enterprises, it is bigger than the arms deal (South Africa’s arms procurement scandal) and if you’re going to do an investigation like that you obviously need a commission of enquiry.”
Madonsela says she doesn’t understand why the report was being challenged and also “got a sense that if the president wanted this matter to be investigated he would have long done so.”
“This gives a perception that is not in his favor because if somebody makes this allegation about his son and this person is a member of the cabinet, a normal person who has nothing to hide would look into it. That’s a question that people raise which shouldn’t be raised about the president,” she adds.
“We asked him a simple question like why did you fire Mr Nene?”
The president chose not to answer the question, Madonsela says.
Madonsela knows how it feels to field questions about a son. Her son Mbusowabantu took her official car while she was asleep, in 2012, and had an accident.
“It was very awkward because for me, I’ve been asked very difficult questions too, I couldn’t give a different answer to journalist. The issue about my son, I have given a consistent answer whether you’re the media or parliament. I was asked by parliament and I never even got a lawyer to answer those questions, so I don’t understand.”
It’s surprising that this woman, who has worked where few dare to tread, has regrets. She feels she should have encouraged someone to sue the government for depriving her office of resources. Organs of state are compelled by section 181 of the constitution to equip institutions like hers. Madonsela’s office didn’t have electronic data capturing.
“You have to go through the whole system manually to find out where that matter is. You’re also unable spot cases that aren’t moving. I think we should have stood up, it is threatening the functionality of that office,” bemoans Madonsela.
Her biggest regret, she says, was also leaving remuneration problems to the administration. Staff were unhappy with a heavy work and light salaries. Law firms handle four major cases a year while Mandonsela’s staff handled more than 50.
Madonsela says this means low morale, contrary to her successor Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s claim, before Parliament, that hinted at Madonsela’s management style.
“I wrote in the report that staff morale was a problem. I had explained that the main problem with staff morale was finances. People are getting too many cases and it is documented, there are memos at my desk all the time,” Madonsela explains.
“In other words, had it been me I would have explained to them, provided I have evidence. I would have said here is a memo, the provincial managers have taken us to court on some of those issues. She had to say she will improve staff morale. She can’t improve staff morale without being given money.”
Parliament invited Madonsela for her last appearance, on October 12, but this was postponed to October 19. This meant Mkhwebane would sit in parliament to present the 2015/16 Annual Report after a mere six days in office.
“I remember I was with the team when we got the notice. We laughed and said nothing here is surprising. We still wanted to find out why it was postponed, but no answer was given. For me it was about leaving graciously but I think it created a clumsy transition between me and my successor. She now had to find herself presenting a report that was not hers which required prior preparation for her to defend herself.”
She also feels there should have been more quiet conversations with the government around values and processes. Institutions with more or less similar functions of the public protector spend their time doing a lot of education, she says, to the executive around the laws they have passed. Her clashes with government ended up being about processes and powers, but at the core of the disputes was the enforcement of values.
“There’s a common narrative about wrong and right. Take Nkandla [the president’s homestead that received irregular non-security upgrades], it was always about what was the ethical standard that President Zuma should have complied with. What was the responsibility of the president?”
“We’re back to the same problem again with state capture. The essence of it was what was the responsibility of the president of this country when one of his own trusted deputy ministers says I’ve been offered a bribe to take the job of my colleague and pass decisions that favor the person that is offering me a bribe. If you’re a president of the country isn’t it your job to just find out if there this is happening since the person who is saying this is implicating your friend and your child or somebody you call a friend publicly,” says Madonsela.
“It’s just an issue about ethics. Themba Maseko accuses you publicly as the president of the country that you asked him to help those people, don’t say I never did that. Shouldn’t you say I have instituted a commission of enquiry to find out why this young fellow is lying about me.”
“These people may well be lying and if they are lying they should be called to order but you need a process that checks out whether or not they telling the truth. As long as nothing is done about it you will always have this question mark. It is creating a dysfunctional executive, it’s creating fractured relationships but it’s also saying to the world there are improper influences in the state of South Africa but it may well be not true.”
These are conversations she believes would have helped cabinet with its responsibilities as stipulated in the Executive Members Ethic Act under section 195 and 237 of the constitution. Her office was inundated with requests to investigate cases she would rather not, like state capture. There were many reasons. Hands were full, she was on her way out, cases should be dealt with on last in last out basis but this case was brought under the Executive Members Ethics Act. When a case is brought in through this Act it compels the Public Protector to investigate. According to this law, cases are also supposed to be completed in 30 days, which also left her with no time.
Madonsela had to make tough choices in standing up for the truth that won her the admiration of many Africans and won her the title of FORBES AFRICA’s 2016 Person of the Year – a fitting send off for a fearless woman who never backed down even in the face of death threats.
“My children are relieved. My brother is just relieved that I made it out alive. That was his message the day I finished on the 14th, saying “sisi siyabonga ukuthi labantu abaku bulalanga (Sister, we are grateful these people didn’t kill you). I hope we keep it that way because with the state capture report, the missiles are following me. I’m done, this is just revenge, I can’t harm them in any way whatsoever,” she laughs.
Many people want to hear from this elegant and softly-spoken daughter of a domestic worker and taxi driver; she has filled her diary until the end of the year. Thereafter she heads off for either Harvard, where she may study guidance and governance, or lecturing at Oxford University. It’ll be a lot quieter there.
&nbsp;

‘Sister, We Are Grateful These People Didn’t  Kill You’

It is a peaceful 200-yard walk from the Cape Town city streets to the gates of Parliament, but inside it was loaded like a gun; anger blazed in the eyes of many for Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa for nearly seven years and head of the African National Congress (ANC).
A small group outside Parliament held up placards reading ‘ANC Betraying South Africa’. The leader, in a navy suit, who wishes to be known only as Michael, said they had taken their lunchbreak to voice their disgust.
“The ANC members here today must do the honorable thing and fire this president who flaunts our wealth.”
A man dressed in the darkness of death contrasted against Parliament’s bright white walls. He held a cardboard match to a cardboard Constitution as MPs floated past in their luxury vehicles.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4842" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Parliament-_JC-5-of-14-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />
Curious students across the way ran to see what the fuss is all about. One claimed Zuma is running the economy into the ground, another countered that he is too powerful to be ousted.
The street vendor, a few blocks down, didn’t care. He sold sweets and cigarettes to anyone who had money, be it Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) red or ANC green and gold, as they shuffled toward Parliament. No one wanted to miss this one.
Inside, the debate raged like a fire on Table Mountain. The gallery was packed as leaders of the opposition parties tore into the ruling ANC. Mmusi Maimane, the first black leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), likened the ills of his opponents to a disease.
“Corruption has infected the entire party like a cancer. While our attention today focuses on a large and malignant tumour, we know that under the surface, the disease has replicated itself in every cell,” said Maimane.
“Today, it will be recorded that ANC members of Parliament chose to defend a crooked, broken president instead of the constitution and the rule of law. Today will signal once and for all that the ANC has lost its way and there’s absolutely no way back.”
Nhlanhla Khubisa, National Freedom Party secretary-general, called for the president to be elected by the citizens, and not by the party.
Pieter Mulder, Freedom Front Plus leader, reminded the ANC of the fate of their predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, who was recalled in 2008.
“His mistakes were 10 times less serious than Zuma&#8230; Sir, if ANC members once again ignore the facts of the last week… take my word for it, history will in a couple of years from now judge them very harshly and negatively,” said Mulder.
ANC MP and Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, John Jeffery, bit back.
“The DA claims the president seriously violated the Constitution, but here is the issue: the court did not find a serious violation of the Constitution as Section 89 (1) requires&#8230; The court did not declare Zuma violated his oath of office as the EFF had wanted.”
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4843" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Pieter-Mulder_JC-1-of-1-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />
A statement was read out:
The Presidency wishes to correct media reports wrongly stating that the judgement by the Constitutional Court found that President Jacob Zuma had broken his oath of office. The Constitutional Court did not make such a declaratory order.
The Constitutional Court instead ruled that “The failure by the President to comply with the remedial action taken against him, by the Public Protector in her report of 19 March 2014, is inconsistent with section 83(b) of the Constitution read with sections 181(3) and 182(1)(c) of the Constitution and is invalid.
Votes were cast, results read, the dust settled and the opposition walked out – oh, by the way, Zuma won: 233 votes to 143.
<h1>How Did We Get Here?</h1>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4846" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ahmed-Kathrada-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />
Even if President Jacob Zuma does survive, this fragile democracy will face an acid test on August 3. Millions of South Africans will go to the polls for municipal elections in which the ruling ANC is expected to lose ground.
How did we get here? Well, the tension has built since 2009, when the story of Nkandla broke. Seven years later, South Africa&#8217;s Constitutional Court – the highest in the land – found Zuma to have unduly benefited from $15 million worth of upgrades to his personal home in KwaZulu-Natal. The court stated Zuma failed to uphold, defend and respect the constitution as the supreme law of the land.
A humbled Zuma apologized publicly to the country on television. The ANC backed him.
&#8220;I wish to reiterate that any action that has been found not to be in keeping with the constitution happened because of a different approach and different legal advice&#8230; I never knowingly or deliberately set out to violate the constitution&#8230; It was never my intention not to comply with the remedial action taken against me by the Public Protector [Thuli Madonzela] or to disregard her office.&#8221;
Other loyalists called for more than an apology. Trevor Manuel, South Africa&#8217;s former finance minister, wanted resignation. Even Ahmed Kathrada, who faced death with Nelson Mandela in the 1960s, wrote a letter calling for Zuma to go.
&#8220;I know that if I were in the President’s shoes‚ I would step down with immediate effect,&#8221; wrote Kathrada.

Go Now, Mr President!

Winning the 2015 presidential and parliamentary elections will turn out to be the easiest task for Nigeria’s new leaders. Governing Africa’s most populous country will prove more arduous.
Now that the polls have come and gone, Nigerians and the newly inaugurated government of President Muhammadu Buhari must now turn their sights on the hard, serious work ahead: fixing their economy, and the ethical fibers of their multi-cultural society.
This will be no easy task, considering that all eyes (local and global) will be on the retired army general as he seeks to resolve the country’s innumerable social, economic and cultural dilemmas.
“This country has to be fixed&#8230; with the engine running,” Buhari’s Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo, told a gathering of media and business folks in Lagos last April.
No doubt the Nigerian nation continues to be a “disappointing case” despite its crowning as Africa’s leading economy, and despite its abundant resources.
Now, when I say “disappointing case” I do not mean to belittle this GDP badge of honor. I merely want to remind you that (most) Nigerians lack access to potable water, electricity, internet access, affordable housing, quality healthcare, quality education and efficient public transportation, just to list a few things on the development agenda.
“We are actually bleeding on many fronts,” a friend working in the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser to President Jonathan admitted to FORBES AFRICA. “Yet we keep behaving as if we are a Saudi Arabia, which has a bigger economy several times the size of Nigeria’s.”
Nigeria is a classic case of the Dutch Disease syndrome, a term coined in 1977 by The Economist to describe the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands after the discovery of the large Groningen natural gas field in 1959. This was around the same time Nigeria also began to export oil from its Oloibiri oil fields, in the creeks of the Niger Delta. Sadly, instead of growing in significance and wealth, Nigeria’s Niger Delta communities have become desolate and impoverished.
In recent times, declining oil prices have had a debilitating effect on the country’s earnings. Nigeria however continues to behave like a wealthy czar, overspending, undersaving and underinvesting.
Revamping the ethos of business and governance should be top priority for Nigeria’s new economic and political managers. Under the previous administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, the country’s petroleum sector became synonymous with corruption and murky corporate governance.
Crude oil prices ($115 per barrel in June 2014) now stand around $60. National revenues have declined by 29% over the last nine months. Decades of not saving enough and not investing enough in the economy have now caught up with the nation.
The IMF has called for a further devaluation of the naira, the national currency, which had already depreciated by 23% between November and March. Citizens at the bottom of the pyramid and small business owners across the country disagreed with this advice. Nigerians would prefer a peaceful nation; productive refineries and infrastructure; reforms that restore the professional dignity of the civil service, the police and other public service providers; pragmatic housing programs; deeper financial and economic inclusion and a drastic reduction in the size of government.
In a nutshell, this is the broad agenda for Nigeria’s new government. Nigerians can however be impatient. It will certainly take more than one election cycle (four years) to fix all of the nation’s economic and social woes. A few months is all we need to gauge if the change Nigerians desire will begin to happen under the old general.
Known as a frugal man with little penchant for frivolities and material acquisitions, it will be interesting to see how he attenuates Nigeria’s widespread culture of nepotism. Which brings me to another matter: state sponsorship of religious activities, events and pilgrimages.
Saudi Arabia made $18.6 billion and $213 billion from pilgrimages and oil exports, respectively, in 2014. Israel recorded 3.54 million tourist arrivals in 2013. The statistics for Nigeria’s tourism sector are nowhere near these levels. Which begs the question: who benefits more from religious tourism – is it the citizen, the state or religious institutions?
The agenda for Buhari’s team is certainly not a boring one.

the general must stop  The bleeding

It’s no secret that South Africa, the biggest and most power-rich country in Africa, faces an energy crisis. It has left the country’s growing industry and mining sector lagging. Government says the 485 tcf (trillion cubic feet) shale gas reserve, could be an answer.
Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, involves horizontal drilling to create fissures. The insertion of pressurized water, sand and fracking fluids release the gas. The tight-rock shale gas reserve is compared to extracting small pockets of gas from cement. Conventional fracking requires a high volume of water, up to 20 million liters per well. The process is heavily criticized for its potential environmental damage such as water usage and contamination; the pollution resulting from the production process and spoiling the biodiversity and aesthetics of the Karoo—a vast, largely untouched, landscape just to the north of Cape Town.
“The focus has been on the bad things, but there are many good things,” says Rob Jeffrey, managing director of Econometrix, who presented their economic predications for fracking at the Fossil Fuel Foundation conference on May 29, in Johannesburg. Organizers were disappointed that no government officials or policy-makers attended.
“South Africa is an energy-intensive country… If we want high growth, we need more energy. Fracking will encourage local industry development and create many jobs because the gas industry will be built from the bottom up, unlike in the States. It will result in poverty alleviation, by building downstream and upstream industries,” says Jeffrey.
The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) is in charge of licensing; Petroleum Agency South Africa (PASA) is in charge of gas production and the government would be in charge of distribution. The time is now, says Ethel Teljeur of NERSA.
“South Africa [might] miss the window of low gas prices if it doesn’t invest in gas infrastructure,” she says.
Teljeur gave the example of missed opportunity in South Africa when home-grown energy company, Sasol, bought shale gas interests in Canada (Talisman) worth over $2 billion and would invest R10 billion ($1.17 billion) over the next five years; money that could have been invested at home.
An argument for fracking could find favor with the government. Dipuo Peters, South Africa’s Energy Minister, was one of the cabinet members who placed a moratorium on fracking. She says fracking should go ahead, if it can be done in a safe and responsible manner.
“The government is cognizant of the controversies associated with shale-gas extraction processes such as ground water and soil contamination, however with on-going developments I am confident that these challenges will in the not-so-far future come to pass,” she said in late March.
In her budget vote speech at the end of May, Susan Shabangu, Minister of Mineral Resources, said the investigation into the feasibility of shale gas in the Karoo will be presented to Cabinet in July.
“We should not have to sue the minister [Shabangu] to get the information which each citizen is entitled to know,” says Jonathan Deal—chairman of the Treasure the Karoo Action Group (TKAG). He took legal action, when in spite of letters and applications, little information was forthcoming. The TKAG won the case.
“When it was being established we needed to know who was on the task team; what they were investigating; who they were consulting; what reports they were considering; whether they had visited America or not or anywhere where fracking was happening. And essentially, what their activities were. We were concerned that it was being manipulated, or orchestrated. We wanted transparency, in revealing the information,” he says over a telephone interview from his Karoo farm.
Deal is an entrepreneur who is not opposed to economic development, as he has often been accused; on the contrary, he supports it, if it is done in a sustainable and responsible manner. He notes that there are more than 140 places worldwide, where fracking is under a moratorium, restriction or a ban.
Deal claims he has attended more public participation meetings than any other South African. He has sat with lobbying gas companies and their consultants.
“They are misleading and side-step the real issues. They have obfuscated and clothed it [public participation meetings] in technical details. And then they are allowed to tick a box to say they have visited wherever and consulted with the local community,” he says.
“One of the fatal flaws gas companies face is the millions of people in this country who will be directly affected by fracking but know nothing about it. They are the rural people that work on the farms, who do not have email, cellphones, telephones or a car to the nearest library to digest Shell’s technical English EMP [Environmental Management Plan].”
The energy industry is trying to get around these fears, with new technology. Andrew Kinghorn, of Shava Mining Enterprise, spoke about GasFrac’s Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) gel. The American-based company has eliminated conventional fracking fluids and the use of water for fracking. They pride themselves in being friendlier to the environment.
The waterless LPG gel remains liquid throughout the stimulation process. After the frac closes the gel returns to a low viscosity and supports sand in the fractures. When using water, around 20% to 50% of the fracture never contributes to gas production because it is in contact with water.
“Nearly 100% of the LPG gel is returned with the flowback in a much shorter time, 10 to 15 days, than conventional fracking methods,” says Kinghorn.
The gel’s properties include low surface tension; low viscosity and low density. It is soluble in hydrocarbons, which enables 3 to 5 times longer fracs; higher long-term production and quicker time to the market.
“It results in the elimination of water, water wells, ponds, handling facilities, frac tanks, additional cartage, disposal costs and the reduced flowback cost due to quick clean up. By using LPG, we are able to realize a higher yield of oil or gas and we don’t take water away from other uses or have the demanding logistics of transporting millions of gallons of water to a well,” he says.
Another positive advancement in the industry, as pointed out by Doug Bentley, of Schlumberger, is that all hydraulic fracturing chemicals are biodegradable. The only question which remains is, are gas companies willing to pay for the more expensive, environmentally friendly fracking fluids? Bentley emphasizes that: “Well placement is the number one issue for improved production. Drilling needs to be planned in 3D as soon as possible.”
There are numerous factors to be considered: the social, economic and ecological. Philip Lloyd, research professor at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology refers to gas as the “beautiful fuel” which provides an opportunity to develop our power system in a clean, relatively low-carbon way.
The reserve might be overestimated, due to the disappearing of gas through volcano-like cone escape structures over billions of years, according to Professor Maarten de Wit from Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. Scientists are unsure of the amount of escaped gas and how much remains.
“The South African landscape differs vastly from that of the United States because of the dolerite outcrop and needs to be assessed in a different way,” he says.
For now, gas companies and South Africans, alike, are holding their breath ahead of the outcome of the task team’s findings later this month.

Tag: parliament

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

South Africa’s ANC Sees Off Motion Of No Confidence

Nationalization Is A Rum Deal

‘Sister, We Are Grateful These People Didn’t Kill You’

Go Now, Mr President!

the general must stop The bleeding

Fracking At Face Value