Greenpeace, the vocal nature protection NGO, dropped a massive rubber banana peel on the roof of Royal Dutch Shell's Technology centre in Amsterdam. The stunt was to protest against the company's drilling activity on the North Pole.
The organisation has voiced its concerned over the drilling by Shell. Claiming that the drilling is irresponsible and could have a 75% chance of an oil spill, Greenpeace thinks the company has "gone bananas" a spokeswoman told IBTimes UK.
Faiza Oulahsen, Shell campaign chief of energy and climate cases in the Netherlands, called for a boycott. "We are calling on everyone to not buy any petrol from Shell between 19 August and 27 September, the last weeks of the drilling season, in order to stand up against the irresponsible and dangerous behaviour from the oil giant," said Oulahsen.
On another roof of Shell's tech centre along the river IJ in Amsterdam, Greenpeace dropped foam numbers of four metres high, which spell out "75%". Outside the building, activists in canoes kayaks hold up a banner, counting the amount of people who have joined in with the boycott, which was more than 10,000 when the banana peel was kicked off in Amsterdam. Big parts of the Shell building were covered in activists who were climbing and abseiling to help put down banners and drop the banana peel.
In a response to the campaign by Greenpeace, which has a history of protesting actions by Shell, the oil giant said that the allegations made by the organisations are largely exaggerated. A Shell spokeswoman said: "The '75% chance of a large oil spill in Alaska' is being misrepresented. This triggered the United States federal agency, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to issue a clarification. BOEM's own data reveals a large spill is very unlikely."
"The statistic comes from a hypothetical scenario which assumes multiple operators, with 500 producing wells, and a lifespan of activity of 75-plus years of oil production, which could produce a spill of more than 1,000 barrels." The company argues that figures from BOEM show that the chance of a spill caused by its drilling in the North Pole is almost neglectable compared to the risk assessment given to BP ahead of the Deepwater Horizon spill.