Why did Shell sue Greenpeace?

To prevent the protests from escalating, and in view of the ship’s route through the English Channel – one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes – Shell UK and its contractor obtained an injunction from the court. The High Court judge said Greenpeace protestors were “putting their lives and, indirectly, the lives of the crew at risk”. However, other Greenpeace protestors ignored this and boarded the vessel in a second protest, meaning we had to seek another injunction.

To obtain these injunctions, Shell UK filed a legal claim against Greenpeace. This claim sought reimbursement of the costs incurred by Shell UK, its contractors and sub-contractors to deal with Greenpeace’s actions and convert the injunctions into a permanent injunction.

On 10 December 2024, Greenpeace has agreed to give binding a legal commitment to Shell and the High Court that it would not carry out similar actions and make a payment to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. This recognised Shell’s main concern with the Greenpeace action – that this kind of stunt at sea is a serious risk to safety and life. Read our full statement here

Shell was seeking to recover from Greenpeace the direct costs it incurred as a result of the 2023 boarding, which amounted to USD $900,000 and not the USD $11 million figure Greenpeace uses in its communications. The costs included:

• approximately USD $500,000 incurred for the support vessel to provide emergency response in the event of a safety incident (including any involving the protestors) and to deter further attempted boardings.
• The cost of a guard vessel and additional security equipment at the arrival port to ensure safe arrival of the vessel and FPSO and disembarkation of the protestors.
• Payment by Shell to its contractors to cover their time spent dealing with the protest.

Shell was not seeking to recover any losses from individual protestors.

A settlement payment of £300,000 – more than one third of the costs incurred during the unlawful boarding - will be paid to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), a charity working on safety at sea. As part of the settlement, Greenpeace has also signed a legally binding commitment to Shell UK and the High Court. It prohibits Greenpeace from carrying out similar actions at or near key oil and gas platforms in the North Sea for 5 to 10 years.

No. The right to protest is fundamental and Shell respects it absolutely, but it must be done safely and legally. In filing the claim in February 2023, Shell UK sought the court’s assistance to prevent an ongoing incident from escalating and to bring the protests to an end safely and peacefully. The protestors were offered the chance to disembark earlier, but chose not to.

In granting the injunctions, the judge was clear that Greenpeace could still protest from a safe distance and that their human rights were not infringed.

Households, motorists and businesses need a stable supply of oil and gas, which remain a key part of the UK energy mix. After decades of supplying oil and gas, output from the UK North Sea is tailing off and now meets less than 50% of the UK’s demand. It is important to stop it tailing off too steeply, while the transition to low-carbon energy gathers pace.

Locally produced, responsible oil and gas production is critical for UK energy security and entirely consistent with a net zero pathway as modelled by the UK’s independent climate advisors, the Climate Change Committee. Penguins is not a new field, but one which has already been producing oil and gas for 20 years. The new floating vessel which was boarded by the protestors will allow production from the Penguins field to continue to provide the necessary energy that the UK needs.