- Greenpeace activists face £7 million lawsuit.
- Dispute over oil platform protest.
- Greenpeace seeks emissions reduction.
In January, four Greenpeace activists boarded a moving oil vessel via a canoe and remained affixed to the platform until it docked in a Norwegian port.
Greenpeace currently faces a £7 million lawsuit, one of the most substantial legal challenges the organisation has ever encountered, in response to the boarding of an oil vessel by its activists.
The environmental advocacy organisation contends that Shell and a contractor are engaging in an “intimidation” lawsuit.
The Legal Dispute Unfolds
The legal action, initiated in January and pending in the High Court of London, concerns a climate protest that began aboard a Shell oil platform in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of the Canary Islands, en route to the North Sea.
Four protestors boarded the vessel via a boat, and they remained alongside the platform until it arrived at a port in Norway.
Shell’s Response and Conditional Offer
Greenpeace reports that Shell initially proposed a claim for £1.7 million in damages but subsequently suggested a reduction to £1.1 million in exchange for the activists’ agreement not to protest at any of its oil and gas infrastructure at sea or in port.
“Your path to wealth begins here – don’t wait, get your free Webull shares.”
Also implicated in the matter is Fluor, a provider of energy and gas services based in the United States of America.
Shell, which refrained from providing a specific figure for its demand, attributed the additional expenses to security and transportation delays.
Announcing record annual profits of £32 billion during the protest, the company issued the following statement: “Boarding a moving vessel at sea is both unlawful and extremely dangerous.”
“The right to protest is fundamental, and we absolutely respect it,” the spokesperson continued. However, it must be conducted lawfully and securely.
They insisted that the conditional offer was solely for safety purposes and “nothing more,” refuting any suggestion that they were attempting to limit protests throughout the case’s negotiations.
They continued, “Boarding a 72,000-metric-ton moving vessel at sea was illegal and extremely hazardous.”
“According to a judge, Greenpeace protestors endangered not only their own lives but also, indirectly, the lives of the crew.”
“Obtaining two court injunctions to prohibit additional boarding incurred substantial legal fees.” Equally exorbitant were the expenses incurred by businesses that were compelled to respond to the situation at sea, such as by deploying an additional safety vessel and bolstering port security.
Greenpeace’s Stance and Call for Government Regulation
Greenpeace, in existence for fifty years and viewing the action as one of the most significant legal threats it has encountered, stated that it would only accept Shell’s offer to mitigate its damages claim on the condition that the company abides by a 2021 Dutch court order mandating a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030. Shell has filed an appeal of this ruling.
Co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, Areeba Hamid, stated that Shell’s leadership was “attempting to stifle Greenpeace’s legitimate demands for climate justice and compensation for loss and damage” by stifling the organisation’s ability to campaign.
She further stated that this case must be dismissed, and Shell must be subject to government regulation.
