Greenpeace Ordered to Pay Hundreds of Millions in Oil Pipeline Case

In a significant legal ruling, Greenpeace has been ordered by a court in North Dakota to pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer, the operator of an oil pipeline. The decision, which was made public on Wednesday, follows accusations that Greenpeace engaged in a campaign of protests against the pipeline, which traverses land associated with Sioux tribes. The environmental organization plans to appeal the ruling.

Energy Transfer welcomed the court's decision, rejecting claims that the lawsuit was intended to stifle free speech. The company had accused Greenpeace of conducting a violent and defamatory campaign against it. During the trial, Energy Transfer's attorney, Trey Cox, claimed that Greenpeace was exploiting the Standing Rock Sioux tribe to further its anti-fossil fuel agenda. The court found Greenpeace guilty of trespassing, harassment, conspiracy, and obstructing access to the pipeline operator's property.

Following the verdict, Energy Transfer expressed gratitude to the judge and jury for their dedication throughout the case. The company stated, "While we are pleased that Greenpeace is being held accountable for its actions, this victory belongs to the people of Mandan and all of North Dakota who have endured daily harassment and disruptions by protesters funded and trained by Greenpeace."

In response to the ruling, Greenpeace announced its intention to file an appeal. A representative from the organization emphasized their commitment to continue fighting and not allowing their voices to be silenced. Greenpeace also claims that Energy Transfer is using these legal actions to suppress dissenting opinions. The organization has initiated a separate lawsuit in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer, citing a European Union law aimed at combating abusive lawsuits. A hearing for this case is scheduled for July 2.

The legal battle stems from the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was completed in 2017 and connects oil fields in North Dakota to a distribution hub in Illinois. The project was initially halted during the Obama administration but was later authorized by President Donald Trump. The Standing Rock Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux tribes have long opposed the pipeline, citing concerns over potential desecration of sacred lands and the risk of water contamination from possible leaks.

Energy Transfer's legal strategy has raised concerns among experts regarding its implications for climate activism. Michael Burger, a legal expert from Columbia University, noted that such lawsuits could dissuade lawful protests and suppress free speech. Another expert, also from Columbia University, remarked that the ruling could dampen protests aimed at obstructing fossil fuel projects. However, he asserted that peaceful protests should remain unaffected by the court's decision.