I am writing this letter to you as notice about Greenpeace's campaign against oil exploration in the Atlantic Frontier, where your company was last month awarded a licence as operator in the 17th Seaward Licencing Round.

I am writing to you in the hope that by clearly explaining the issues and the motives for our campaign, you may be able to support our aims and objectives. At the very least I am confident that you will comprehend both the campaign and its premise.

You will probably already know that Greenpeace opposes any exploration for or exploitation of oil on the AtLantic Frontier. Of course, there are a range of potentially serious environmental consequences attendant upon any oil exploration. All of these are concerns which apply to this area where the environment, though close to the British Isles, is still remarkably unpolluted. A majority of environmental organisations share these concerns which, in themselves, should be enough to stay any further developments in the Atlantic Frontier.

But let me be clear Greenpeace is primarily opposed to exploitation of the Atlantic Frontier because of the even more alarming, global environmental problem of climate change.

The facts about climate change can be summarised as follows:-

In 1995 the world's scientists agreed that the human impact on global climate is now "discernible".

The United Nations Environment Programme ('UNEP") has found that "temperature increases beyond 10C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage".

The greatest contributor to human-induced climate change is carbon dioxide (C02) from the burning of fossil fuels.

The best predictions are that climate change wi11 bring about sudden and severe (and effectively irreversible) changes to ecosystems, agriculture, civilisations and economies; and be damaging to human health and well-being. It also threatens widespread extinction of species.

Temperature change can be estimated from projections about how much C02 will be in the atmosphere. Working from these figures, it is possible to say how much carbon-containing fossil fuels the world can burn before it exceeds the limits identified by UNEP.

Relatively simple calculation shows that the world's atmosphere cannot sustain the use of even half of the known and economically-recoverable reserves of fossil fuels. Former Environment Secretary John Gummer has himself highlighted the role of the the industry in opposing progress on climate protection, for example through lobbying against controls. In a 1996 interview he said "It is simply not good enough for major producers of fossil fuels, both oil and coal, to claim that their financial interests should stand in the way of progress in making significant reductions in greenhouse gas emmission." He added that "if we don't do something very dramatic" climate change would be severe enough to stop the Asian monsoon happening every year and cause desertification in Europe.

Despite this strong language, UK Government energy policy to date has been in direct contradiction to the needs of the climate, being commited to an unrestricted dash for more oil in the Atlantic Frontier.

Climate protection demands an end to fossil fuel use-the question is not if, but when. In Greenpeace's view action must be taken at once to begin the end of all fossil fuels and to replace them by bringing in alternatives which are cleaner and sustainable, such as solar, wind and other renewables, and much more efficient use of energy. It is this sane energy policy which we campaign for.

Simply put, if we cannot afford to burn known fossil fuel reserves, we have no requirement to look for or develop new ones. As former Chancellor Dennis Healey once said about a different sort of problem "When you're in a hole, first stop digging." In Greenpeace's view it is imperative to stop digging" in the Atlantic Frontier. It is for this reason that Greenpeace will be campaigning to stop the exploration for and exploitation of oil from the area and any proposed future exploration.

Over twenty species of whale and dolphin, including the rare and marvellous blue whale, have been discovered to inhabit (at various times) the deep ocean of the Atlantic Frontier together with species of very long-lived and (here) nearly extinct fish such as the orange roughy, and expanses of cold-water corals and sponges which are likely to harbour hundreds of species. In addition the area is an extraordinarly rich one for birdlife. There are 63 Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Orkney and Shetland Islands, many of which are ranked as of national and international importance for birds. Greenpeace agrees with the many scientists and environmentalists who believe that the area is also worthy of protection as a habitat for this rich diversity of species.

Together with the Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society, the Marine Conservation Society and supported by the RSPB, Greenpeace has made a formal Complaint to the European Commission about the failure of the UK Government to properly implement the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") Directive offshore. Our co-complainants and we believe that any activity which may have a serious environmental impact (as all stages of oil exploration and development do) is unlawful This is because such activity is carried out prior to there being a full and proper EIA; and without full and open public consultation; and without being wholly transparent. Nor is this activity in the national interest when it increases the likeliliood of further climate change, and decreases the likelihood of further investment in the development and use of sustainable renewable forms of energy (such as Solar pv), many of which are available for use now.

Your company can, of course, avoid taking any such unlawfill steps by deciding to apply the EIA Directive fully in the areas were you will operate. This means that no further development can take place in the meantime. Your company can also avoid taking any further steps towards creating a larger pool of unusable oil, by reversing its plans to devebp the Atlantic Frontier as an oilfield.

In this historic year, when world leaders are about to meet in New York five years after the Rio Earth Summit, in June; and in December will meet in Kyoto to determine how they will limit and reverse climate change, what will be your response to this overwhelming challenge?

Specifically:
Will you now withdraw from further work on the Atlantic Frontier development?

Will you recognise that in order to protect climate in line with the objectives of the climate convention, fossil fuels will have to be phased out before reserves run out?

What steps wil you take to pressure governments for emission reduction policies at Kyoto, and will you support a binding target of 20% cut by 2005 (on 1990 levels, for industrialised countries)?

For more information, please write to or telephone me. Together with the hundreds of thousands of other concerned individuals and the many organisations who work to protect the earth and its species from potentially devastating consequence, I await your reply.

Yours truly

Sarah.J.Burton

Director, Campaign for Sane Energy
Greenpeace UK