Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.

On July 30, 2015, the federal district court for the District of Alaska found Greenpeace, Inc. (Greenpeace) to be in contempt of its May 2015 order granting a preliminary injunction to Shell Offshore, Inc. The preliminary injunction barred Greenpeace from tortiously or illegally interfering with the movement of certain vessels that Shell is using for its Arctic drilling and exploration efforts this summer. Beginning the morning of July 29, 13 Greenpeace activists dangled from the St. John’s Bridge in Portland, Oregon, preventing the vessel Fennica, an icebreaker, from traveling from the dry dock location where it was being repaired down the Willamette River. In its July 30 order, the court imposed penalties of $2,500 for each hour that the activists remained suspended. The hourly penalties would have increased to $5,000 and then $10,000 per hour had the protest continued until July 31 and August 1, but by the afternoon of July 30, four of the suspended protesters had been removed, and the Fennica traveled under the bridge. The remainder of the protesters came down later that evening.

In June 2015, the federal district court for the District of Alaska denied Greenpeace, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Shell Offshore, Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. (together, Shell) brought to prevent Greenpeace activists from interfering with its Arctic drilling season. In May, the court had granted Shell a preliminary injunction. In its June decision, the court explained that it had diversity and federal question jurisdiction, as well as admiralty jurisdiction, over the proceeding, and that its jurisdiction extended to claims arising from activities on the high seas. The court also concluded that Shell’s claims were ripe, were not displaced or preempted by federal law, and were not barred by the doctrines of primary jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or comity. The court also found that Shell had adequately pled trespass to chattels, interference with navigation, private nuisance, and civil conspiracy claims.

The federal district court for the District of Alaska granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) that barred Greenpeace, Inc. (Greenpeace USA) and individuals associated with Greenpeace USA from trespassing and interfering with operations on three vessels that Shell Offshore Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. (together, Shell) planned to use for 2015 oil exploration off the coast of Alaska in the Arctic Ocean. Six individuals had boarded a Shell heavy transport vessel in the Pacific Ocean and scaled the drilling vessel the transport vessel was carrying. The individuals, one of whom was an American employee of Greenpeace, were part of an operation called “The Crossing” that Greenpeace promoted on its website as part of its Save the Arctic campaign. The court concluded that Shell was likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of its claims against Greenpeace USA. The claims included intentional tortious interference with maritime navigation, trespass and trespass to chattels, private nuisance, and civil conspiracy. The court also found that Greenpeace USA’s role “in perpetuating the presence of activists” aboard the drilling vessel created a likelihood of immediate irreparable harm with respect to the three vessels. In addition, the court found that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the TRO, noting that Shell had a “significant and legally valid interest in conducting authorized exploration on its arctic leases without dangerous or tortious interference.” The court indicated, however, that it would narrowly tailor the injunctive relief to minimize the impact on Greenpeace USA’s legitimate interests in conducting protests and monitoring drilling activities. In addition to barring trespass on the three vessels, the court barred entry into 1,000-meter “safety zones” around the three vessels and set a schedule for determining whether Shell was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief related to other vessels in its fleet.