#savethearctic

Yesterday morning, staff at Greenpeace Germany received an important-looking letter from Shell - well, Shell’s Legal Services department. Over the next 24 hours or so, identical letters arrived at other Greenpeace offices, including Mexico, UK, France, Hungary, Nordic, Japan, Mediterranean, Poland, Greece, Czech Republic, Belgium, Canada and even Greenpeace’s Science Unit. I think it’s fair to say Shell had something they wanted to say to us.

Live streaming of Greenpeace Nordic activists occupying a Shell-contracted icebreaker in Helsinki harbour.

Dozens of Greenpeace Nordic activists have boarded and occupied a Shell-contracted icebreaker in Helsinki harbour as it prepares to leave for the Alaskan Arctic.

Last week, Lloyd’s of London - the world’s leading insurer which sets the global standard for risk assessment - released a report warning investors not to rush in and invest in Arctic drilling. Looking at the industrial onslaught that is likely to hit the Arctic as the sea ice melts, the report covers the environmental impacts and financial risks of industrial fishing, shipping and mining. But it's most scathing on oil drilling, and in particular of the ability of oil companies to clean up after a major spill.

Ten days after the leak began, Total is still struggling to contain the gas pouring from its North Sea Elgin platform, citing bad weather as the cause of the delays. Yet, in just 100 days’ time, Shell wants to start drilling for oil in the remote and extreme Arctic environment – claiming it has the technology and the tools to deal with any spill.

Here are six reasons why an oil spill in the Arctic would be so much harder to deal with than a gas leak in the North Sea, and so much more catastrophic: