Protesters disable London BP petrol stations

Quotes

   

1 of 5. A Greenpeace activist displays a sign after closing down the Hampstead Road BP station in Camden, north London July 27, 2010. Protesters from Greenpeace disabled some of BP's 50 petrol stations in central London on Tuesday in protest at the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Credit: Reuters/Felix Clay/Greenpeace

LONDON | Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:45pm BST

LONDON (Reuters) - Protesters from environmental group Greenpeace disabled some of BP's 50 petrol stations in central London on Tuesday in protest at the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Greenpeace and BP said activists stopped the flow of fuel by flipping safety switches on forecourts before removing them to prevent the service stations from reopening.

The protests coincided with BP's second-quarter results where the oil company reported a $17 billion (10.9 billion pounds) loss and said it had set aside $32 billion to tackle the spill.

Greenpeace said its activists had managed to close down 47 service stations in the capital. BP confirmed 35 were forced to close temporarily, but that half of that number were now fully operational and selling fuel again.

The company branded the demonstrations an "act of vandalism" and said it would reopen all the sites as soon as it was safe to do so.

In the United States, consumers have vented their frustration over the spill by demonstrating at gas stations and corporate offices, drumming up support on Facebook and waging a mock public relations campaign on Twitter.

But their opposition has fallen short of direct action aimed at shutting down retail outlets.

BP described the Greenpeace action as "an irresponsible and childish act" which interfered with safety systems.

"The action shows a total disregard for the safety of motorists and staff at the sites," a BP spokeswoman said.

She said one of the sites affected is used to supply ambulances with fuel.

At one station in Camden, north London, Greenpeace climbers replaced BP's logo with a new version showing the green "sunflower" disappearing into a sea of oil.

The pressure group said the protests had been planned to urge new chief executive Bob Dudley to move away from his predecessor's "obsession with high risk, environmentally reckless sources of oil."

Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven said: "The moment has come for BP to move beyond oil. Under Tony Hayward the company went backwards, squeezing the last drops of oil from places like the Gulf of Mexico, the tar sands of Canada and even the fragile Arctic wilderness.

"We've shut down all of BP's stations in London to give the new boss a chance to come up with a better plan. They're desperate for us to believe they're going 'beyond petroleum'. Well now's the time to prove it."

(Editing by Keith Weir and Jon Loades-Carter)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
GROCK wrote:
These people are Eco Warrior zealots who are no better than islamic terrorists. They have no understanding of the implications and safety issues of their actions. They are more than happy to impact the lives of the majority and I suspect take great glee in knowing that they are doing this.
Whilst in a Democracy it is their right to peaceful protest, (although frequently it is not peaceful). If these people have so much time on their hands then I suggest they go get a job and become productive within society rather than carrying out the mayhem normally associated with their actions. This of course will not happen because these people are proffessional protesters whose sole aim in life is a missguided and blinkered view of the world and cannot accept a differing view from theirs. Democracy allows them their view but they do not accept a democratic approach in opposition to their views and aims.
They do not even understand that their actions are most likely to create the opposite result both politically and from the general public perception of their aims.

Jul 27, 2010 9:55am BST  --  Report as abuse
racingintime wrote:
I agree that acting in the way these people did may have caused a safety risk and for this they should receive critism. However, to call them terrorist which GROCK has done is showing himself/herself to be a person with little knowledge of the real world. The use of the word terrorist these days is used not in its true form and often with little understanding of the comparison being made. Also many members of GreenPeace are professional people who do this sort of activity on their day off. They are usually well educated and plan things like a military exercise as they have done here.

Jul 27, 2010 11:32am BST  --  Report as abuse
carioca56 wrote:
You know, you can cut down all the trees you want, rape the hell out of the environment and even kill innocent people in poor countries such as Afghanistan, and nothing will happen. But just touch one bloody gas station, and there will be HELL to pay. Good work, Greenpeace!

Jul 27, 2010 3:20pm BST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.