MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA – Greenpeace has been ordered by a North Dakota jury to pay over $650 million in damages to an oil company for its involvement in a major anti-fossil fuel protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The lawsuit, filed by Energy Transfer, accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy related to the demonstrations nearly a decade ago.
During the trial, Energy Transfer argued that Greenpeace was behind an unlawful and violent scheme that aimed to cause financial harm to the company. While Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict, they expressed concerns that the case could force them into bankruptcy, potentially ending decades of environmental activism.
The protests against the pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation drew thousands of participants. Greenpeace maintained that they did not lead the demonstration, emphasizing that it was organized by local indigenous leaders who opposed the pipeline construction. Despite the jury’s decision, the lawsuit has raised questions about free speech rights.
The trial included testimony from Energy Transfer’s co-founder, who claimed protesters had created a false narrative about the company. The legal battle also sheds light on the challenges faced by environmental groups engaging in public interest litigation. Experts believe the verdict’s magnitude may deter future efforts to challenge similar projects through legal means.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, spanning 1,172 miles, has been operational since 2017. However, it lacks a crucial permit to operate beneath Lake Oahe in South Dakota, prompting calls for a comprehensive environmental review. Greenpeace has retaliated by filing a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in Dutch court, accusing the oil company of attempting to silence critics through legal actions.
Regardless of the outcome of this legal battle, both Energy Transfer and Greenpeace remain committed to their respective causes. The case highlights the complex intersection of environmental activism, corporate interests, and legal challenges in the United States. As the debate over fossil fuel projects continues, the implications of this verdict could resonate far beyond North Dakota.