Attorneys for Energy Transfer and Greenpeace exchanged opening statements in a civil trial in North Dakota on Wednesday morning, a trial that could potentially bankrupt the environmental group.
The lawsuit concerns Greenpeace’s role in significant protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline almost a decade ago. The pipeline, which conveys crude oil from North Dakota through several states to a transfer point in Illinois, experienced delays of several months in 2016 and 2017 due to lawsuits and protests.
The trial began on Wednesday with opening arguments in a relatively quiet county courthouse in Mandan, N.D. According to Greenpeace, Energy Transfer, the builder of the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million in damages.
Energy Transfer, one of the biggest pipeline companies in the country, accuses Greenpeace of instigating disturbances that cost it millions of dollars in lost financing, construction delays, security, and public-relations expenses. Trey Cox, the lead attorney for Energy Transfer, stated that his team would demonstrate that Greenpeace had “planned, organized, and funded” unlawful protests. He referred to the trial as a “day of reckoning.”
Everett Jack Jr., the lead lawyer for Greenpeace, countered with a detailed timeline to refute some of Energy Transfer’s claims, stating that Greenpeace only played a small role in the protests, which drew an estimated 100,000 people to the rural area.
The protests were initially started by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who claimed that a portion of the pipeline, which crosses under Lake Oahe on federal land near its reservation, posed a risk to the water supply and endangered sacred sites. The tribe initiated protests in the spring of 2016 and filed lawsuits aimed at stopping the pipeline’s operations. The Dakota Access Pipeline has been operational since 2017, although final approval is still pending.
Conflicts between law enforcement, private security forces, and protesters began in August 2016, and the number of demonstrators grew. Mr. Jack emphasized that the protests had already escalated into dangerous confrontations before Greenpeace got involved.
He highlighted an incident on September 3, 2016, when private security unleashed dogs on protesters who were demonstrating against Energy Transfer’s bulldozing of an area where a tribal leader claimed there were cultural artifacts. He pointed out that no one from Greenpeace was present at the time of the confrontation.
Mr. Jack also stated that two Greenpeace staff members arrived two days later, bringing a solar truck to provide electricity. In his opinion, Greenpeace was committed to nonviolence and got involved not to incite unrest but rather to help “de-escalate” the situation and provide aid such as tents and training.
In his opening argument for Energy Transfer, Mr. Cox cited internal Greenpeace emails and publications, including a letter sent to international lenders signed by Greenpeace and other organizations. He asserted that the campaign led the project to lose lenders and refinance at higher rates.
However, Greenpeace countered that there was no evidence to support the claim that the banks made decisions based on the letter, which was signed by over 500 groups.
During the two-day jury selection, which began on Monday, several prospective jurors indicated that they or their relatives had ties to the oil and gas industry or local law enforcement officials who had been involved in the protests. This could potentially benefit Energy Transfer in the trial.
Ultimately, the selected jurors consisted of eight women and three men, including two alternates.
Lawyers for two other organizations named in the lawsuit, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund, made statements in court. They stated that their organizations operated separately and were not involved in the protests.
It is estimated that the trial will last five weeks.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/climate/greenpeace-lawsuit-dakota-access-pipeline-energy-transfer.html
