Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc.

Filing 4

AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Verified Complaint against Greenpeace, Inc., filed by Shell Oil Company.(Leppo, Jeffrey)

James E. Torgerson (Bar No. 8509120)
Jeffrey W. Leppo (Bar No. 0001003)
Ryan P. Steen (Bar No. 0912084)
STOEL RIVES LLP
510 L Street, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
SHELL OIL COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation,

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00042-SLG
Plaintiff,

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED
COMPLAINT

v.
GREENPEACE, INC., a California
corporation, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
I.
1.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) brings this action for injunctive and other relief to

prevent Greenpeace and individuals affiliated with and acting in concert with Greenpeace (but
whose identities are not known at this time) (collectively “Greenpeace”) from committing federal
and state common law and maritime violations. The actual and threatened actions of Greenpeace
are in furtherance of a carefully staged campaign of entirely illegal and extremely unsafe
activities directed against Shell for the purpose of unlawfully preventing, or otherwise
unlawfully disrupting, delaying, and interfering with, oil and gas exploration drilling in the U.S.

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 1 of 20

Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas adjacent to Alaska’s
northern coast.
2.

This action is brought to protect Shell’s Arctic 2012 exploration drilling,

including the associated vessels, facilities, and personnel, and Shell’s other assets, including its
substantial OCS assets in the Gulf of Mexico, from tortious and illegal conduct by Greenpeace.
3.

In order for Shell to conduct exploration drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi

Seas, Shell must transport numerous vessels, including two large mobile drilling vessels known

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

as the Noble Discoverer and the Kulluk, to isolated locations within the Arctic Ocean 16 to 75
miles offshore of Alaska, anchor these vessels, and conduct exploration drilling operations
during the short open water season in the Arctic, while also engaging in ice management, anchor
management, oil spill response, refueling, resupplying, and servicing of drilling operations. The
Noble Discoverer must be brought from New Zealand using a tow assist. The Kulluk must be
towed from Seattle, Washington. Other essential vessels must transit on a specific schedule from
numerous other locations to the Arctic Ocean. Shell also currently owns a substantial number of
OCS oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico on which there are ongoing federally-permitted
exploration and development drilling and production facilities and operations. These activities
and facilities, some of which are located in very deep waters, require ongoing oil spill response,
refueling, resupplying, servicing, and personnel changes.
4.

Greenpeace has embarked on an international campaign against Shell and Shell’s

U.S. OCS assets. Greenpeace has already engaged in tortious and illegal conduct against Shell,
including trespass, occupation, and endangerment of the Noble Discoverer. Greenpeace intends
to disrupt, delay, and if possible, prevent Shell from conducting exploration drilling in the Arctic
Ocean OCS in 2012 by committing on-the-water or nearshore acts of trespass and nuisance; by
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 2 of 20

intentionally endangering the safety of vessels, drilling facilities, and personnel while navigating
in territorial waters, waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”), and on the high seas;
by interfering with contractual relationships; and by otherwise impairing Shell’s right and ability
to navigate and to conduct commerce within the OCS and on the high seas free from tortious and
criminal conduct.
5.

Left unsanctioned, Greenpeace’s actions will prevent Shell from transporting

vessels, facilities, supplies, and personnel to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and from

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

conducting federally-permitted exploration drilling activities on Shell-owned OCS oil and gas
leases, during the brief 2012 open water season in the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, Greenpeace will
otherwise severely impair and endanger Shell’s vessels, facilities, property, and personnel,
interfere with contractual relations, trespass and impair Shell’s right to navigate and conduct
commerce within U.S. territorial waters, within waters of the EEZ, and on the high seas. If not
immediately enjoined, Greenpeace’s illegal antics are intended to, and will cause Shell,
irreparable and immeasurable harm.
II.

PARTIES

6.

Shell Oil Company is a Delaware corporation operating in Alaska.

7.

Greenpeace, Inc. is a non-profit California corporation having its principal place

of business in the District of Columbia, and is a worldwide environmental advocacy organization
with offices in Anchorage and Sitka, Alaska. Greenpeace has been active in Alaska since the
1970s. It is registered in Alaska as a non-profit corporation. It has been and is an active litigant
before this Court, including in Case No. 3:10-cv-00271-TMB.
8.
time.

John and Jane Does 1-20 are individuals whose identities are unknown at this

On information and belief, John and Jane Does 1-20 intend to support, assist, or

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 3 of 20

participate in Greenpeace’s tortious and illegal acts to blockade and otherwise disrupt transport
of the Noble Discoverer and Kulluk to the Arctic, conduct of exploration activities in the Arctic
Ocean during the 2012 open water season and conduct of exploration and production activities in
the Gulf of Mexico.
III.
9.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1333, because, among other grounds, Shell’s causes of action are based on questions of federal

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

law and include tort and other claims, including interference (i) with marine traffic on navigable
waters, (ii) with the performance of marine contracts, and (iii) with facilities engaged or
preparing to engage in OCS activities, all of which bear a substantial relationship to traditional
marine activity. Additionally, this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 43
U.S.C. § 1349(b)(1) which provides the district courts of the United States with jurisdiction over
cases and controversies arising out of or in connection with any operations involving exploration,
development, or production of the subsoil of the seabed of the OCS. Finally, upon information
and belief, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because of diversity of citizenship
between plaintiff and defendants.
10.

Venue is appropriate in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
IV.

11.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Shell and its affiliates own interests in certain OCS oil and gas leases, including

leases located in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and in the Gulf of Mexico.
12.

During the 2012 open water season in the Arctic Ocean, Shell intends to

conduction exploration activities, including exploration drilling, in the Chukchi and Beaufort

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 4 of 20

Seas. The drilling vessels that will be used for the 2012 exploration drilling in the Arctic Ocean
are the Noble Discoverer and Kulluk.
13.

The Noble Discoverer is currently in New Zealand and making preparations to

leave via tow assist using the Dauntless.

The Noble Discoverer under tow assist by the

Dauntless will be transiting to waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, to territorial waters
of the United States, and to one or more ports within the United States, before proceeding
(possibly via tow assist) to the Chukchi Sea.

The Kulluk is current moored in Seattle,

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

Washington. From Seattle, Washington, the Kulluk under tow by the Aiviq, will transit to the
Beaufort Sea.
14.

In order to conduct drilling operations in the Arctic Ocean in 2012, the Noble

Discoverer and the Kulluk will each be attended by numerous vessels. These vessels will be
used for ice management, anchor handling, oil spill response, refueling, resupply, and servicing
of the drilling operations. The majority of these vessels have lengths greater than 30.5 meters
and drafts of at least four meters.

The support vessels include the following: Nordica (ice

breaker); Fennica (icebreaker); Tor Viking (anchor handler); Explorer (supply vessel); Spirit
(supply vessel); Hauler (supply vessel); Aiviq (anchor handler); Nanuq (oil spill response);
Guardsman (oil spill response); Klamath B (oil spill response); Containment System (oil spill
response); Harvey Explorer (supply vessel); Harvey Spirit (supply vessel); Harvey Hauler
(supply vessel); Endeavour (oil spill response); and Oliktok (oil spill response). Other specific
vessels, including a tanker, and a supply barge and tug, are yet to be determined.
15.

The close presence of vessels, aircraft such as helicopters, and individuals with

uncertain and unpredictable motives and intentions, to drilling operations and to drilling vessels
and support vessels in transit to a drilling location or operating at a drilling location, presents
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 5 of 20

unacceptable and irreparable risks to safety, property, and the environment. Weather in the
Arctic is dynamic. Ice conditions are similarly unpredictable and dynamic. Water temperatures
are frigid with extremely short survivability times. Tactics such as blockading vessels in transit,
boarding vessels, and chaining of individuals to anchors, vessels, or other facilities, during
operations in the Arctic Ocean seriously degrade the ability to monitor, and respond to ever
present risks, and very significantly increase the risks of collisions or allisions, injuries to
personnel, damage to essential facilities and equipment, and harm to the environment from a

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

catastrophic event.
16.

The ability to conduct exploration drilling in the Arctic Ocean is very seriously

constrained in time period and duration to a brief portion of the Arctic open water season during
which operations will not present an undue risk as a result of ice conditions, weather, the
potential to interfere with Alaska Native subsistence activities, or the potential to affect marine
mammal passage. Impeding, blockading, or otherwise delaying Shell’s 2012 exploration drilling
operations, or forcing Shell to cease operations for some period of time, would have a series of
irreparable impacts on the interrelated web of agreements and permits among Shell and
numerous contractors, suppliers, numerous federal agencies, and Native organizations.
17.

The 2012 exploration drilling plans have required an enormous and costly effort,

involving coordination of numerous permitting and license requirements from federal agencies,
study and accommodation of Native rights and concerns, and coordination and mobilization of
numerous necessary and interrelated contract services to construct, transport, install, supply, fuel,
and ultimately operate the drilling and support vessels in their remote locations. Because of the
complexity of the numerous interrelated permitting, logistical and operational activities, and
contractual services, and the limitations imposed by navigational, weather, tides, and ice
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 6 of 20

conditions, a delay of even a single day presents the very real risk that Shell’s contractors or
Shell will be unable to perform or to complete their contractual responsibilities, and that Shell
will as a consequence be unable to conduct or complete its exploration drilling program.
18.

Shell is actively engaged in oil and gas exploration, development, and production

on its OCS leases in the Gulf of Mexico on a continuous and ongoing basis. The offshore
drilling rigs, platforms, and other facilities that are owned or operated by or on behalf of Shell in
the Gulf of Mexico are as follows: Perdido, Auger, Brutus, Mars, Ram Powell, Ursa, Cognac,

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

West Delta-143 A, West Delta-143 B, Couger, Boxer, Enchilada, Brazos A19, North Padre
Island-975, Noble Jim Thompson, Noble Danny Adkins, Transocean Nautilus, Noble Jim Day,
Noble Driller, and Bully 1 (as of March 2012).
19.

Many of the risks presented by the close presence of vessels, aircraft such as

helicopters, and individuals with uncertain and unpredictable motives and intentions, to drilling
operations and to drilling vessels and support vessels in the Arctic Ocean are also present in the
Gulf of Mexico. Although ice is not present and the water temperature is not frigid, tactics such
as blockading vessels or rigs in transit, boarding vessels or rigs, and chaining of individuals to
anchors, vessels, or other facilities during oil and gas operations still presents unacceptable and
irreparable risks to safety, property, and the environment. Among other things, these types of
tortious and illegal activity seriously degrade the ability to respond to ever present risks, and very
significantly increase the risks of collisions or allisions, injuries to personnel, damage to essential
facilities and equipment, and harm to the environment from a catastrophic event.
20.

Greenpeace has a pattern and practice of tortious and illegal actions, and

publically touts its ongoing and future intention to continue engaging in such conduct.
Greenpeace has blockaded vessels, blocked passage of vessels, trespassed on vessels, vandalized
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 7 of 20

property, chained individual protesters to rigs of drilling vessel equipment, and unlawfully
boarded and occupied drilling rigs. In 2012, Greenpeace has publically initiated a training
program in St. Petersburg, Florida, for the specific purpose of providing training in how to board
and barricade vessels and facilities located offshore.
21.

Greenpeace has made numerous public statements that it intends to stop Shell

from conducting oil and gas exploration activities in the Arctic Ocean in 2012, and that it will
not cease its actions against Shell until Shell agrees to stay out of the Arctic.

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

22.

In furtherance of its campaign against Shell, on or about February 23, 2012,

Greenpeace unlawfully boarded and occupied the Noble Discoverer for the express purpose of
preventing its transit from New Zealand to the Arctic so that Shell cannot engage in exploration
drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
23.

One of Greenpeace’s three large vessels has just been moved into the Gulf of

Mexico, in proximity to Shell’s oil and gas exploration and development operations and facilities
located there. While near the Gulf of Mexico, this vessel has been directly engaged in training
Greenpeace activists how to board and barricade offshore vessels and facilities.
24.

Greenpeace has previously engaged in tortious and illegal conduct against Shell in

the Gulf of Mexico as part of its campaign against Arctic oil and gas leasing, exploration and
development. In May, 2010, Greenpeace unlawfully boarded the Harvey Explorer, a vessel
currently contracted to Shell to provide support for the 2012 exploration drilling programs in the
Arctic Ocean.
25.

Greenpeace has interfered with, and has indicated it intends to continue

interfering with Shell, including with its ability to safely transport the Noble Discoverer from
New Zealand to the Chukchi Sea.

Given the maneuverability and navigation constraints

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 8 of 20

inherently faced by the Noble Discoverer and the Kulluk due to their size, sea ice, and
meteorological conditions, efforts by Greenpeace to blockade the rig with smaller vessels
(including Zodiacs or kayaks) or human divers, or to block the path of these vessels while under
tow or tow assist, are extremely dangerous and possibly life-threatening.
26.

The presence of Greenpeace activists of unknown and unascertainable experience

and intentions in close proximity to Shell’s 2012 exploration drilling activities and vessels, or in
close proximity to Shell’s Gulf of Mexico OCS operations, would create an unsafe and

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

unpredictable situation in which the safety of neither the Greenpeace members nor the
employees and contractors of Shell could be assured.

Greenpeace has a well-established

institutional reputation and history for extremist and reckless conduct involving human and
marine blockades. Under the circumstances, were Greenpeace allowed in proximity to Shell’s
vessels or operations, their presence would create a “Hobson’s Choice” for Shell of abandoning
lawful operations as long as Greenpeace is present, and thereby incurring irreparable harm, or
proceeding at grave risk to life, limb, property, and the environment. Because Shell is unwilling
to risk the consequences of reckless actions or intentional misconduct by Greenpeace, the
organization’s presence will, for all real and practical purposes, cause irreparable harm.
27.

Recognizing the dangers posed by Greenpeace’s past illegal conduct and the

otherwise dynamic conditions present in the Arctic Ocean, the U.S. Coast Guard has proposed to
establish “temporary safety zones” around the Noble Discoverer and the Kulluk while anchored
in the Arctic Ocean. However, the U.S. Coast Guard has not issued a final decision on its
proposals, and its proposal do not apply to the drillships while in transit under tow or tow assist
to the Arctic Ocean, to support vessels or to Shell’s Gulf of Mexico facilities. Moreover, the past

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 9 of 20

and present conduct of Greenpeace demonstrates only contempt for federal safety zones,
endangerment of lives, and irreparable harm to lawful commerce.
V.

CAUSES OF ACTION
First Cause of Action:
Nuisance

28.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint.
29.

One who obstructs or interferes with another’s free passage on any navigable

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

water commits a public and/or a private nuisance.
30.

Greenpeace has intentionally and knowingly obstructed and interfered with the

free passage and operation of the Noble Discoverer, and threatens to interfere with free passage
and operation of the Noble Discoverer, the Kulluk, other vessels owned or operated by or on
behalf of Shell, and OCS facilities owned or operated by or on behalf of Shell, by blockading
those vessels, blocking the path of those vessels, positioning their own vessels and associated
equipment and human divers at unsafe locations near the path of those vessels and facilities or on
those vessels and facilities, or by engaging in other tortious and unlawful actions.
31.

These actions by Greenpeace have caused and threaten to cause a public nuisance

because of the inherent public dangers associated with such tortious and illegal activity.
32.

Greenpeace’s actions and threatened actions constitute a private nuisance because

the dangers inherent in their protest activity will be specially borne by Shell.
Second Cause of Action:
Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations
33.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint.
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 10 of 20

34.

Any person who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a

contract between another and a third person or with a contractual expectancy is liable for loss
resulting from the interference.
35.

Greenpeace has improperly, intentionally, and knowingly interfered with, and

threatens to continue to interfere with, Shell’s contracts for the transport of the Noble Discoverer
and other vessels to the Arctic Ocean, for exploration drilling in the Arctic Ocean in 2012, and
for exploration, development, and production operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

36.

Greenpeace has improperly interfered with Shell’s ability to comply with the

conditions of its oil and gas leases and other contracts, including those related to Chukchi Sea
and the Beaufort Sea oil and gas exploration and development.
Third Cause of Action:
Trespass and Trespass to Chattels
37.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint.
38.

A defendant is liable for trespass to chattels if he dispossesses another of the

chattel or intermeddles with the chattel. A defendant is liable for trespass to property if it takes
possession of, interferes with possession of, or is present upon another’s property without lawful
right or interest.
39.

Greenpeace has boarded and occupied the Noble Discoverer. It threatens to

commit further trespasses to stop, delay, or interfere with Shell’s exploration activities in the
Arctic Ocean, by boarding vessels or facilities, chaining or securing persons to anchors, vessels,
or facilities, or by otherwise physically occupying, contacting, damaging, or impeding Shell’s
possession, use, and operation of vessels and facilities, whether located at docks in Seattle or
elsewhere, or located on territorial waters, the OCS, waters of the EEZ, or the high seas.
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 11 of 20

40.

These activities constitute trespass or trespass to chattels.
Fourth Cause of Action:
False Imprisonment

41.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint.
42.

A party who intentionally confines another person within fixed boundaries is

liable for false imprisonment.
43.

Greenpeace is impeding progress and effectively blockading the Noble

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

Discoverer and threatening to further impede the movement of the Noble Discoverer and other
vessels owned or operated by or for Shell. By making or threatening to make it impossible for
these vessels to move, Greenpeace has and threatens to falsely imprison those on board the
vessels.
Fifth Cause of Action:
Assault
44.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 43 of this Complaint.
45.

A person commits assault when that person, inter alia, recklessly places another

person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument.
46.

Greenpeace’s extremely dangerous actions and threatened actions on and near

drilling operations, vessels in transit and vessels in port, have recklessly placed and threaten to
recklessly place persons onboard the Noble Discoverer and other vessels in fear of imminent
physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument.

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 12 of 20

Sixth Cause of Action:
Conversion
47.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 46 of this Complaint.
48.

A person commits conversion when they exert unauthorized use or control of

another person’s personal property.
49.

Greenpeace’s actual and threatened conduct, as alleged above, including its illegal

boarding and occupation of the Noble Discoverer, constitutes unauthorized use and control, and

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

tortious conversion, of Shell’s personal property.
Seventh Cause of Action:
Violation of Proposed and Existing Safety Zones
50.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 49 of this Complaint.
51.

The U.S. Coast Guard has proposed temporary safety zones around the Noble

Discoverer and the Kulluk while the vessels are anchored or deploying and recovering moorings
on location to drill exploratory wells at various prospects located in the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas from July 1, 2012 to October 31, 2012.
52.

The U.S. Coast Guard has established multi-year safety zones for other Shell

drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
53.

Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 147.1, the purpose of a safety zone is “to promote the

safety of life and property on the facilities, their appurtenances and attending vessels, and on the
adjacent waters within the safety zones.”
54.

Greenpeace’s pattern of past conduct, as well as its present conduct and

statements, demonstrate that it intends to violate the proposed temporary safety zones for the
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 13 of 20

Noble Discoverer and the Kulluk, and the existing safety zones in the Gulf of Mexico, and
therefore to violate 33 C.F.R. § 147.1.
Eighth Cause of Action:
Reckless Endangerment
55.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 54 of this Complaint.
56.

A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly

engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

57.

Greenpeace’s positioning of its vessels in front of the Noble Discoverer so as to

blockade its movement, illegally boarding the Noble Discoverer, and threatening to do the same
on other Shell vessels, and other actions, constitutes reckless endangerment in conduct that
creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.
Ninth Cause of Action:
Violation of International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea (33 U.S.C. § 1602)
58.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint.
59.

The United States has adopted the International Regulations for Preventing

Collisions at Sea, also known as the COLREGS, which are found following 33 U.S.C. § 1602.
The COLREGS set forth a series of rules that vessels must follow in order to avoid collisions, to
stay out of one another’s path, and to navigate safely.
60.

In particular, Rule 18 provides that a power driven vessel “shall keep out of the

way of” a vessel that is restricted in its ability to maneuver, such as a vessel engaged in a towing
operation.

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 14 of 20

61.

Greenpeace has interfered with the Noble Discoverer and threatened to interfere

with other vessels by blocking the path of those vessels, and positioning their own power-driven
vessels and associated equipment and divers at unsafe locations near and directly in front of
those vessels.
62.

Greenpeace’s efforts to blockade or block the path of these vessels are in flagrant

disregard of the COLREGS.
Tenth Cause of Action:
Malicious Mischief On the High Seas

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

63.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint.
64.

18 U.S.C. § 1363 prohibits a person within the special maritime and territorial

jurisdiction of the United States from willfully and maliciously injuring or attempting to injure
any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property.
65.

Greenpeace has interfered with the Noble Discoverer and has threatened to

interfere with other vessels by blocking the path of those vessels, and positioning their own
vessels and associated equipment and divers at unsafe locations near and directly in front of
those vessels, and by other actions. These actions constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1363.
Eleventh Cause of Action:
Violence Against Maritime Navigation
66.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 65 of this Complaint.
67.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2280, it is unlawful for any person to seize or exercise control

or to attempt to do the same over a ship by force or threat or any other form of intimidation. It is
similarly unlawful to cause damage to a ship which is likely to endanger its safe navigation.
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 15 of 20

68.

Greenpeace’s efforts and threats to blockade or block the free navigation of the

Noble Discoverer and other Shell vessels and facilities under tow or tow assist violates 18 U.S.C.
§ 2280.
Twelfth Cause of Action:
Damage to the Property of an Energy Facility
69.

Shell re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 68 of this Complaint.
70.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1366, whoever knowingly and willfully damages or attempts

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

or conspires to damage the property of an energy facility in an amount that in fact exceeds or
would exceed $5,000, or to cause a significant interruption or impairment of a function of an
energy facility, is subject to criminal sanction.
71.

The Noble Discoverer, Kulluk, support vessels, and tow vessels, and Shell’s Gulf

of Mexico exploration and production rigs are each an “energy facility” within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 1366(c).
72.

Greenpeace has knowingly and willfully acted, conspired and threatened to act to

damage or attempt to damage an energy facility, and the property damages that have been or
would be caused by Greenpeace’s extremely dangerous and unlawful actions would far exceed
$5,000, in addition to nonmonetary and irreparable harm to persons, property, and the
environment.
VI.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Shell requests the following relief:
1.

Entry of temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, prohibiting

Greenpeace, its agents, servants, employees, and all others acting in concert with Greenpeace,
from engaging in tortious and illegal actions against vessels, facilities, and property owned or
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 16 of 20

operated by or on behalf of Shell and located in a U.S. port or operating within U.S. territorial
waters, the OCS, and waters of the EEZ, including (i) breaking into or trespassing on any such
vessel, property, or facility, (ii) tortiously or illegally interfering with the movement, progress, or
operation of any such vessel, property or facility, (iii) barricading, blocking, or preventing access
to or egress from any such vessel, property, or facility; and (iv) endangering or threatening any
employee or visitor of Shell or any of its affiliates who is present on, or as they enter or exit, any
such vessel, facility, or property;

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

2.

Entry of temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, establishing

safety zones around and over vessels, facilities, and property owned or operated by or on behalf
of Shell and located in a U.S. port or operating within U.S. territorial waters, the OCS, and
waters of the EEZ, and further enjoining Greenpeace, its agents, servants, employees, and all
others acting in concert with Greenpeace, from entering these safety zones;
3.

An award of consequential damages for the pecuniary loss experienced by Shell

as a result of Greenpeace’s interference with its contractual obligations;
4.

An award of damages including incidental damages for all injuries resulting from

the tortious actions of Greenpeace and the individual defendants;
5.

An award of punitive damages because Greenpeace’s protest antics are both

willful and grossly negligent and demonstrate a callous disregard for the rights of others; and
6.

An award of any other and further relief, including costs and attorney fees, as the

Court deems just and equitable.

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 17 of 20

DATED: February 27, 2012
STOEL RIVES LLP

By: s/ Jeffrey W. Leppo
JAMES E. TORGERSON
(BAR NO. 8509120)
JEFFREY W. LEPPO
(BAR NO. 0001003)
RYAN P. STEEN
(BAR NO. 0912084)

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 18 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 27th of February, a copy of the foregoing First Amended Verified
Complaint was served on the following parties via hand-delivery and regular U.S. mail:
Greenpeace, Inc.
125 Christensen Drive, Ste. 2
Anchorage, AK 99501

STOEL RIVES LLP

510 L Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99501
Main [phone]
Fax [phone]

Greenpeace, Inc.
475 Katlian Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Greenpeace, Inc.
75 Arkansas Street, Ste. 1
San Francisco, CA 94107

s/ Jeffrey W. Leppo
Jeffrey W. Leppo

71296165.5 0079498-00001

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Shell Oil Company v. Greenpeace, Inc., et al.
Page 20 of 20