MANDAN, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – A jury of nine early next week will decide the $300 million case accusing Greenpeace of concocting a scheme to undermine the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The environmental group is on trial in Morton County District Court over claims that it incited illegal acts by protesters in North Dakota that cost the developer of the pipeline millions in alleged property damages, lost revenue and other unexpected costs. Energy Transfer also claims Greenpeace waged a misinformation campaign against the company in an effort to stop the project.
Greenpeace was one of many activist groups involved in the demonstrations, which took place in 2016 and 2017 near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, and drew thousands of attendees. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe started the protests in opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline, which it sees as an affront to tribal sovereignty and a pollution threat.
Greenpeace denies all of Energy Transfer’s claims and has called the lawsuit an underhanded effort to hurt the environmental movement.
The environmental group wrapped up its testimony on Thursday in the trial that began Feb. 24. Closing arguments are expected to take place Monday. After that, the jury will have to weigh several claims.
For one, jurors will decide if Greenpeace is liable for trespassing, nuisance and depriving Energy Transfer of its property. They’ll also have to make a decision as to whether the organization aided and abetted others to do the same.
Six employees of Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate went to the protests, according to evidence shown in court. Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace personnel trespassed on its land, vandalized its equipment and deliberately blocked construction crews from working.
The environmental group also provided supplies, training and intel to Dakota Access Pipeline protesters, witnesses testified during the trial. Energy Transfer attorneys say their evidence suggests that protesters used these resources to engage in criminal behavior against the pipeline.
Greenpeace has countered that Energy Transfer has presented no proof directly linking it to any illegal acts by demonstrators, and that its involvement in the protests was peripheral.
Greenpeace USA isn’t the only Greenpeace organization named in the lawsuit. Two others — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — are also defendants. Both say they never had any employees visit the protests, nor provided any money to the cause.
Energy Transfer says that the three groups are inextricably linked and are all responsible for the alleged damages.
The company also accuses Greenpeace of publishing nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline.
These statements fall into three categories:
- That the Dakota Access Pipeline goes through tribal land;
- That Energy Transfer deliberately destroyed sacred cultural sites during the pipeline’s construction; and
- That protesters faced violence by law enforcement and private security hired by Energy Transfer.
The jury will consider whether the statements are false and whether they were published by Greenpeace. If they decide yes, the jurors would also have to weigh whether Greenpeace knew the statements were false or showed reckless disregard for the truth in publishing them. The jury would also have to conclude that Energy Transfer suffered an injury from the statements.
Over the course of the trial, Energy Transfer attorneys underlined that many Greenpeace employees did not reach out to company representatives or law enforcement to get their perspectives before making the statements.
Current and former employees for Greenpeace who testified in the case maintained that the statements originated with Standing Rock leaders and people on the ground at the protests, and that they had no reason to doubt the claims at the time they wrote about them. Many said they still stand by the statements.
Greenpeace has also argued that countless other organizations — including media outlets and other activist groups — circulated the claims well before the environmental group did.
Most of the statements were issued or co-signed by Greenpeace USA. Greenpeace International was only involved in two of the nine statements, both of which came from an open letter published on Nov. 30, 2016 urging banks to divest from the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace Fund says it had nothing to do with any of the nine statements.
Energy Transfer also says the on-the-ground damages it claims resulted from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, as well as the alleged defamatory statements, hurt its business relationships.
The company alleges that Greenpeace’s actions delayed the completion of the pipeline, forcing it to lose out on revenue. It also claims that Greenpeace caused banks to pull their support for Energy Transfer, causing it to incur unexpected financing costs.
Energy Transfer accuses all three Greenpeace defendants of coordinating with one another in order to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Comments