In your letter dated 19th February, 1997 you intimated that you represent the whole of Greenpeace. I am writing to you in that capacity.

In my letter of 10th February, Greenpeace were asked to confirm that they did not intend to conduct a campaign which involved physical interference with our lawful development activities in the Atlantic Frontier, particularly Foinaven.

I am very concerned that notwithstanding our meeting on 21st February, and BP's attempts to enter a constructive dialogue with Greenpeace concerning the Foinaven Field development, you appear to be unable to provide the confirmation requested.

In our discussions to date, Greenpeace have described some of their concerns in the areas of climate change, the wilderness nature of the areas west of Shetland and BP's use of new technology. BP have previously explained our position in respect of these matters as elaborated below and have intimated our wish to continue the dialogue. This will become increasingly difficult if any intentional interference with our business takes place.

Climate Change

BP acknowledge that global climate change is a serious issue and we are an active participant in the debate about solutions, co-operating with governments in seeking economically sound and internationally agreed policies. We seek continuous improvements in our own use of energy, and have made signiffcant progress in improving the efficiency of our operations resulting in lower emissions.

It is also the case that, as we move into the next century, production from the Foinaven and Schiehallion fields will not maintain UK oil production at current levels, but simply slow the rate of decline. Thus the already low levels of C02 emissions from the UK's upstream industry will continue to fall as production declines. Furthermore, if the Foinaven and Schiehallion fields were not produced, the demand for oil would be met from elsewhere.

In addition, a group of oil companies has combined efforts to carry out an area-wide seabed survey. This survey which was carried out in 1996, covered an area the size of Wales and is already providing valuable base-line information. Further industry funded studies include cetacean monitoring and the 'fingerprinting' of tar balls.

Technology

The technology being used to develop the Foinaven and Schiehallion fields is an evolution of technology which has been available in the North Sea since the mid 1980's. Floating Production Storage and Offoading (FPSO) systems are part ship, part oil platform and part oil tanker. They offer safe, reliable and cost-effective solutions to both marginal and deep-water fields and at end of field life are more easily de-commissioned than fixed installations.

Offshore loading is also a tried and tested technique, with around 60 per cent of Norway's oil and 20 per cent of the UK's oil being exported by this method.

The sub-sea technology used has also evolved from the North Sea although applying this technology in the deeper waters west of Shetland has presented a number of challenges. By overcoming these challenges, a number of UK and UK-based companies are now in a strong position to pursue export opportunities in deep water areas around the world.

Campaign Effects

In the absence of our receipt of any express undertaking to the contrary, we are naturally concerned that a Greenpeace campaign targeted at our legitimate business activities may have an unacceptable, adverse impact on the safety of all personnel involved and cause ourselves and our co-venturers to sustain considerable financial loss.

In respect of the Foinaven Field, interference with our ability to produce oil is likely to cause loss in a number of areas. In particular, there is potential for contractors' personnel and leased/rented equipment and vessels to be standing idle whilst charges therefor require to be met. Losses are likely to be incured in respect of various contracts entered into in anticipation of intended production. Neither our nor our co-venturers' personnel and assets may be fully utilised and a substantial loss of profit is also likely to be sustained. Interference with any other parts of BP's businesses may also give rise to significant losses of a similar nature.

It must also be apparent that the U.K, Scottish and local economies could also be damaged by any loss of production arising from your activities.

We very much hope that Greenpeace will not engage in any activities which amount to a deliberate and intentional attempt to cause foreseeable loss and damage to ourselves and the community at large.

Yours sincerely