More than one way to skin a penguin – Shell vs Greenpeace

I’m putting this one in the “never let the facts get in the way of a good story” bucket. Shell settled a court case against Greenpeace yesterday, but you would be very confused if you read their respective press releases and social media stories because both claimed victory. Greenpeace were assuming the role of triumphant gladiators against big oil’s bullying, and Shell played the offshore safety champion. So what’s the craic?

The incident

Shell own the ‘Penguins’ oilfield in the North Sea (along with fellow Earth lovers ExxonMobil). This field contains 418,000,000 barrels of oil, which is equivalent to about 160 million tonnes of CO2 emitted upon final usage (using emissions factors from climateaccountability.org). I don’t need to tell you about the climate impact of 160 megatonnes of greenhouse gas. Shell was sending a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel from the Canary Islands to Penguins to liberate all that shareholder value. Four Greenpeace activists chased down the vessel at sea, boarded it and hoisted a “Stop Drilling. Start Paying” sign. 

The claim

Shell was seeking $2.1 million in damages in costs relating to shipping delays, delays to production and increased security costs, but their lawsuit was for $1 million. With legal fees, Greenpeace were facing an $11 million bill. Greenpeace claim it was bullying from big oil to shut down legitimate protest against the climate emergency, while Shell claimed the activists were recklessly putting lives at risk at sea. This was seen as a SLAPP – strategic lawsuit against public participation. 

The settlement

Greenpeace and Shell settled out of court. Greenpeace has to pay £300,000 but not to Shell, to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. They also must stop protesting at four Shell sites in the North Sea, which are mature and in decline despite previously being big beasts in the area. There is no liability accepted.

And what do they say about it?

Greenpeace: “Shell thought suing us for millions over a peaceful protest would intimidate us, but this case became a PR millstone tied around its neck … We’ve ensured not a penny of our supporters’ money will go to Shell and all funds raised will be used to continue campaigning against the fossil fuel industry and other big polluters.”

Shell: “For Shell, the right to protest is fundamental and has never been at issue. Instead, this case was about an illegal boarding by protesters which a High Court judge described as ‘putting their lives and, indirectly, the lives of the crew at risk’.”

What the actual “eff” (that F being facts)?

Well, there is a modicum of truth in both camps but neither partisan opinion trumps the effect of burning 418 million barrels of oil. It is dangerous to board vessels at high speed at sea. It is also true that big oil wanted to shut down focus on the climate impact of their profit-making activities.

If we want a liveable planet, we can’t allow any new oil and gas projects or licences. The government has paused approving new fields while it examines how to regulate new drilling – and it is asking us, the public, what we think should happen. Sign this petition to give the government the confidence to take this bold step to save our planet.