MANDAN, North Dakota — In a high-stakes courtroom battle that commenced this week, a Texas-based pipeline operator is accusing environmental group Greenpeace of interfering with the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, resulting in delays and financial losses. According to the company’s lawyer, Trey Cox, Greenpeace orchestrated actions to thwart the pipeline’s progress and made defamatory claims that affected the company’s financial dealings.
The controversies stem from protests over the pipeline’s route near Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has raised concerns that the pipeline could endanger their water supply. Despite these objections, the pipeline was successfully completed in 2017.
The litigation involves multiple entities within the Greenpeace organization, including Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and the Greenpeace Fund Inc. The allegations detail a range of purported activities by Greenpeace, including financing professional protesters, supplying blockades, and spreading misinformation.
Cox has asserted that these actions have led to significant economic damages to Energy Transfer, the parent company of Dakota Access. Claims include over $82 million in added security and contractor expenses and $80 million in lost profits due to the delays in pipeline operation. The lawsuit also accuses Greenpeace of disparaging statements that deterred lenders, leading to substantial financial repercussions for Energy Transfer.
Representatives for Greenpeace, however, have countered that their involvement was minimal and aligned with a commitment to nonviolence. They emphasized that their actions at Standing Rock were in response to requests from tribal leaders and that the protests were fundamentally led by indigenous groups. Greenpeace’s attorneys highlighted the organization’s limited presence at the protest site and their broader non-violent protest strategies.
One particular point of contention in the trial is the claim that Energy Transfer desecrated sacred lands during construction, a statement Greenpeace allegedly circulated among the company’s lenders. However, Cox argued that the pipeline’s route was altered 140 times to avoid such areas, emphasizing the company’s efforts to respect indigenous sites and be a responsible corporate entity in North Dakota.
Moreover, the broader implications of this case touch upon issues of free speech and the right to protest. Greenpeace argues that the lawsuit is an attempt to silence critics through legal pressures, a perspective shared by numerous organizations that have expressed solidarity with the environmental group.
The legal battle not only revisits the intense protests that captured national attention in 2016 and 2017 but also raises significant questions about corporate accountability and environmental advocacy.
The trial, expected to last five weeks, is being held with nine jurors and two alternates. The outcome could have lasting implications on how activist groups and corporations engage in environmental disputes.
Energy Transfer had previously pursued similar claims in federal court, which were dismissed in 2019. Subsequently, the case was refiled in state court. Additionally, Greenpeace International has preemptively filed a suit in the Netherlands alleging that Energy Transfer’s actions were wrongful and aiming to recover costs from what they describe as baseless litigation.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. Facts, individuals, and described events and circumstances may not be accurate. For corrections or removal requests, please contact [email protected].