BP hits back at Greenpeace

David Knott
London
[email protected]

In the last column, I reported how John Campbell, technical director of London's E&P Forum, advises oil companies to take a non-confrontational stance to environment campaign groups (OGJ, Aug. 18, 1997, p. 27).

Since then, BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. has demonstrated a more robust approach. The company has secured court orders to freeze the assets of Greenpeace Ltd. and prevent further interference with its activities.

On Aug. 19, the Edinburgh Court of Sessions granted an interim interdict against Greenpeace and three of its campaigners and set in motion a claim for reimbursement for money lost due to Greenpeace action.

A BP official explained that the interim interdicts against Greenpeace and its members Sarah Burton, Jon Castle, and Chris Rose are intended to "...restrain these people from interfering with our activities."

This type of court order has not stopped Greenpeace in the past; both BP and Shell U.K. Exploration & Production, during its losing battle over Brent spar, achieved nothing with such interdictions.

Rig move

By freezing the assets of Greenpeace Ltd., however, BP has used a vehicle of Scottish jurisdiction called an Arrestment Order, which enables court officers to "arrest" funds in bank accounts.

The BP official said this move is simply a claim for reimbursement of costs paid to contractors for charter of Stena Dee semisubmersible rig, during a period when Greenpeace prevented the rig from working.

On Aug. 9, the rig was on its way from Norway to Foinaven field in U.K.'s West of Shetland area to hook up subsea production equipment. Thirty miles from the field, Greenpeace's Rainbow C ship hove alongside. Seven climbers chained themselves to Stena Dee's anchor chain and pontoons. Later the activists attached a "survival capsule" to a pontoon and swam in front of the rig to prevent it moving to the field. They were removed by police 8 days later.

During the protest Chris Rose, deputy executive director of Greenpeace, said, "Already a year behind schedule and plagued with technical problems, Foinaven is a disaster. Rather than continue to pour millions into it, BP should put the field into mothballs and invest the money in its solar arm instead."

Money back

The Arrestment Order follows BP's claim for a total £1.4 million ($2.24 million), to include compensation for payment of £100,000/day ($160,000/day) for the rig during the 8 days it stood idle.

Another BP official said, "The claim is not vindictive, nor are we using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are simply saying Greenpeace made us waste this money, and we'd like it back."

Greenpeace did not see this as an attempt to gain compensation but more of an try to gag it. A spokes- man said this move may be linked to a "more important" move by Greenpeace through the European Court to prevent West of Shetland development (OGJ, Apr. 14, 1997, p. 30).

Now the Edinburgh court must set a date for a hearing on a full interdiction, and Greenpeace must decide whether to contest the arrestment order. Meanwhile, BP is not sure freezing assets will work, either.

The first BP official said, "We don't know if we have arrested any funds or not. Greenpeace can't have been unaware of our intentions, so I imagine most of its money will have been moved elsewhere."