In Mandan, North Dakota, a jury is weighing the case involving Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Accusations were aired that Greenpeace employed deceitful tactics to prevent the pipeline’s progress, as articulated by an attorney representing the energy corporation. Conversely, Greenpeace’s legal team asserted that the advocacy group had minimal involvement in the pivotal protests that took place between 2016 and 2017.
The situation stems from claims by Energy Transfer and its branch, Dakota Access, that Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and its financial division, Greenpeace Fund Inc., engaged in defamation, civil conspiracy, nuisance, trespass, and other disruptive actions. They are pursuing damages amounting to hundreds of millions, arguing that these allegations have severely affected their project.
For weeks, nine jurors and two alternates have followed the trial proceedings initiated by Energy Transfer, with the verdict set to decide potential damage compensation. The contested narrative centers on protests against the pipeline, notably its Missouri River passage, which the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe contends poses a threat to their water resources. The pipeline has, however, been operational since mid-2017, transporting oil.
Trey Cox, representing Energy Transfer, accused Greenpeace of inflating a local issue to further its agenda. He painted Greenpeace as deceptive, accusing them of financing professional demonstrators, orchestrating protester training, supplying intelligence about the pipeline route, and providing lockboxes for activists to secure themselves to construction machinery. Cox claimed that unfounded accusations, such as desecrating sacred burial sites, sought to tarnish the company’s standing within global investment circles. Energy Transfer, Cox stated, altered its construction route over a hundred times to respect cultural sites.
Cox recounted financial repercussions faced by Energy Transfer, including $96 million in lost financing, $7 million in public relations expenses, and $80 million from construction delays lasting five months. He called upon the jury to find Greenpeace culpable, emphasizing the need for accountability to prevent similar future disruptions in communities.
Greenpeace’s defense countered that Energy Transfer’s case lacked substantiation and that they failed to meet the legal criteria for proving defamation or damages. They contested claims linking Greenpeace to construction delays or refinancing issues, noting the group’s limited presence or involvement in the demonstrations.
A specific bone of contention was a letter signed by Greenpeace and others, alleging burial desecration—a charge Cox compared to grave robbing. Nevertheless, Greenpeace International’s attorney, Courtney DeThomas, maintained that Energy Transfer had yet to demonstrate actual harm from this collective act. She noted that the missive had broader support beyond Greenpeace alone.
Similarly, attorney Everett Jack Jr. from Greenpeace USA challenged the claims, arguing that costs cited by Energy Transfer transcended the period of protests. He stressed the absence of testimony implicating Greenpeace in instigating violence or property damage. Moreover, no law enforcement or company security personnel could testify to Greenpeace’s leadership role in the protests.
Greenpeace criticized the lawsuit, portraying it as an attempt by corporations to weaponize the judicial system against dissenters, highlighting issues surrounding free speech and the right to protest. Energy Transfer stands firm that the matter is about legal compliance, not an infringement on free expression.