Greenpeace Faces $660 Million Verdict in Dakota Access Pipeline Case
A jury in Mandan, North Dakota, has delivered a staggering verdict against the environmental NGO Greenpeace, mandating the organization to pay $660 million in damages—over €600 million—to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based firm deeply involved in the transportation and storage of fossil fuels. This ruling is rooted in a protracted legal battle stemming from the large protests that erupted in 2016 and 2017 against the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been a flashpoint of contention among Native American groups and environmental activists alike.
This harsh verdict poses a significant threat to Greenpeace's future, as the NGO, founded in 1976, previously warned that such a conviction could lead to its bankruptcy. The case arose when Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace for approximately $300 million (€275 million), but in a surprising turn of events, the jury ultimately more than doubled the sum, leading Greenpeace to announce its intention to appeal the decision.
Mandan, the site of the trial, is located about 80 kilometers north of the Standing Rock Reservation, home to the Sioux tribe, where protests against the pipeline were concentrated. The Dakota Access Pipeline itself is an underground conduit that transports crude oil from the Bakken Formation—an area straddling Montana and North Dakota—down to Illinois, traversing South Dakota and Iowa along the way. The pipeline's construction faced intense opposition from local residents, particularly from the Standing Rock Sioux, who argued that it posed a risk to the Missouri River, their primary water source, and threatened sacred lands significant to Native American culture.
The construction project witnessed a swell of opposition, as thousands joined the protests, including other tribal members, environmental advocates, and notable celebrities. The protests became notorious, marked by violent confrontations with law enforcement and considerable property damage.
In 2019, Energy Transfer filed its suit against Greenpeace, accusing the organization of orchestrating the protests, disseminating misinformation, and financially injuring the company. The jury ultimately found Greenpeace guilty of trespass, defamation, and conspiracy.
Greenpeace, in response, contended that it had played a limited role in the protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and argued that lawsuits of this nature are an infringement on freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly, protections enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In a robust statement, the NGO decried the ruling, labeling Energy Transfer as "oil industry bullies" attempting to stifle dissent against their operations.
In a counter-move, Greenpeace recently initiated a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in a Dutch court, seeking damages for the harm inflicted upon the organization due to the legal actions brought against it by the American company. This situation highlights the ongoing tension between environmental activists and the fossil fuel industry, raising questions about the broader implications for grassroots movements and their ability to advocate for change in the face of powerful corporate interests.
Related Sources: