ET $300M Lawsuit v. Big Green Pipe Violence Gets Court Hearing

A lawsuit being heard this summer is designed to hold Big Green groups responsible for their actions. Energy Transfer (ET), the owner and operator of Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP), is suing Greenpeace

Aug 26, 2024

ET $300M Lawsuit v. Big Green Pipe Violence Gets Court Hearing

August 26, 2024

A lawsuit being heard this summer is designed to hold Big Green groups responsible for their actions. Energy Transfer (ET), the owner and operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP), is suing Greenpeace and other alleged instigators for $300 million for the damages sustained by the company as a result of violent protests incited by the groups in North Dakota in 2016. Big Green is scared.

Is there a connection to the Marcellus/Utica? Indirectly. ET is the builder, owner, and operator of the Mariner East pipelines in the northeast (as well as other M-U pipes). So, there’s that connection.

But more to the point, our side, the oil and gas industry, needs to get much more aggressive with lawsuits against Big Green groups that violate the law and block construction of new pipeline (and other infrastructure) projects. This is a wake-up call. ET is showing how our side needs to respond to these unhinged lunatics — by extracting money from them.

David Blackmon writes in the Daily Caller about ET attempting to hold Big Green accountable for its actions:

The recent spate of anti-Israel demonstrations at college campuses could cause déjà vu for North Dakotans, who endured the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016. Like many of the campus protests, the pipeline protests were funded and fueled by big outside groups that showed little concern for the damaging impacts of their actions.
Now, a lawsuit being heard this summer is designed to hold some of these groups responsible for their actions. Energy Transfer, the owner and operator of the pipeline, is suing Greenpeace and other alleged instigators for $300 million for the damages sustained by the company as a result of these protests. The lawsuit claims that these environmental activists spent months spreading false information about the pipeline project and helped fund out-of-state agitators who attacked law enforcement and damaged property during the protests.
As it relates to the North Dakota controversy, the lawsuit alleges a Greenpeace misinformation campaign began with mass emails falsely claiming that the Dakota Access Pipeline would travel across the sovereign land of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, that it would destroy “sacred Native Lands,” and was being approved without proper environmental reviews.
Energy Transfer says none of the claims made by Greenpeace were accurate. It says the pipeline does not cross any Standing Rock land, and the company had made 140 different modifications to its planned route to avoid potentially impacting any culturally important sites. An independent review by the North Dakota Historic Preservation Office later concluded the pipeline affected no historic properties.
Furthermore, the pipeline was approved after years during which multiple environmental studies and reviews were conducted. Pipelines can actually play an important role in improving environmental outcomes because there is a greater likelihood of spills and leaks from other transportation methods like railroads, trucks and barges.
The lawsuit alleges that lies spread by Greenpeace attracted thousands of protesters to North Dakota who soon formed massive encampments.
Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace also helped provide nearly a half-million dollars and additional training to another group of protesters tasked with using violence to stop or delay the pipeline. Greenpeace allegedly continued to support these activities, even organizing fundraising drives across ten cities to collect supplies for the members of the Red Warrior Society. The lawsuit alleges that, in November 2016, members of the encampment raided Energy Transfer property, then lit fires and attacked police with grenades and flares.
In the aftermath of the protests, the suit alleges Greenpeace and its allies left with millions of dollars raised from the protests and their publicity. Meanwhile, North Dakotans were left with the bill to clean-up the environmental disaster of human waste, trash, and abandoned animals left in the encampments. And while the Dakota Access Pipeline was completed, Energy Transfer claims it lost significant amounts of money due to destroyed equipment, security costs, and project delays.
Energy Transfer’s lawsuit seeks to hold Greenpeace and others accountable for these alleged actions. Protesters and the groups that fund them have rights, but so do the individuals and companies who they unfairly malign and attack. The case could be an important reminder to organizations and protesters that free speech is constitutionally protected, but inciting and funding violent actions is not.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications. (1)

The Greenpeace radicals are nervous. Their high-priced lawyers are asking the court to dismiss the case:

Attorneys for Greenpeace have asked a North Dakota judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline over the environmental activist group’s organized opposition to the pipeline.
Thousands of protesters came to south-central North Dakota in 2016 and 2017 to protest construction of the pipeline in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which opposed the project out of concerns the pipeline infringed on its sovereignty and threatened to pollute its water supply. Greenpeace was among the activist groups that backed the demonstrations.
Energy Transfer Partners’ lawsuit, filed in Morton County District Court in 2019, accuses Greenpeace of criminal behavior — including trespassing, vandalism, arson as well as the harassment and assault of construction workers — to stop the pipeline, often referred to as DAPL. The pipeline company also alleges that the environmental group solicited money to support unlawful activity against the pipeline and incited riotous behavior by protesters.
On top of this, the plaintiffs claim Greenpeace orchestrated an misinformation campaign that ultimately convinced the federal government to halt construction of DAPL for roughly five months. They also say these actions led multiple banks to divest from the pipeline company.
Energy Transfer has asked for damages from Greenpeace in an amount to be awarded at trial.
The sprawling lawsuit includes thousands of court records.
In a Thursday afternoon hearing, attorneys for the defense argued that the case should be dismissed because Energy Transfer Partners has not offered any concrete evidence linking Greenpeace to the harms the company claims it suffered as a result of the DAPL demonstrations.
“Greenpeace cannot be responsible for the entire protest without evidence,” attorney Everett Jack told Southwest District Court Judge James Gion.
Jack noted that at the time of the protests, which took place north of the Standing Rock Reservation, Energy Transfer did not openly blame Greenpeace for halting construction of the pipeline. Instead, the company pointed fingers at other activist groups, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and President Barack Obama’s administration, he said.
He argued similarly that there isn’t proof that Greenpeace engaged in any criminal behavior. Jack said only six people from Greenpeace ever attended the demonstrations, and that those people were not in North Dakota when many of the criminal incidents that Energy Transfer cites in court records allegedly occurred.
Ashley Johnson, an attorney representing Energy Transfer, said the pipeline company has records of Greenpeace claiming responsibility for delaying DAPL as well as admitting to having a hand in illegal protest activity.
Johnson said that at the very least, a jury should be allowed to hear the evidence and make its own decision.
At the hearing, attorneys for Greenpeace also asked the judge to toss Energy Transfer’s request for damages.
Jack said Energy Transfer has no grounds to ask for monetary relief because there is no evidence Greenpeace harmed, or intended to harm, the pipeline company.
Energy Transfer attorney Gregg Costa said there is plenty of proof to the contrary.
“They thought the pipeline was evil,” Costa said. “There are mountains of evidence showing that.”
Greenpeace is not the only defendant in the case. Energy Transfer’s complaint also names a protest group called the Red Warrior Society, which was active at the DAPL demonstrations.
Energy Transfer in court filings accuses Greenpeace of coordinating with the Red Warrior Society to commit crimes against the pipeline company.
Steven Caplow, also representing Greenpeace, asked the judge to dismiss this part of the claim because the Red Warrior Society is not a legal entity.
“You can’t conspire with the Red Warrior Society, because it doesn’t exist,” Caplow said during the hearing.
Gion did not indicate when he would rule on Greenpeace’s motions.
This isn’t the first lawsuit Energy Transfer Partners has filed suit against Greenpeace for the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The pipeline company in 2017 filed a racketeering suit against the organization in U.S. District Court asserting similar claims. A federal district court judge later dismissed that case.
The demonstrations ended in February 2017 after Gov. Doug Burgum ordered the camps to close. The pipeline, which carries oil from the Bakken formation to Illinois, was completed later that year.
In 2020, a judge pulled Energy Transfer’s easement, asking the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct more environmental research on the pipeline. It was allowed to continue operating.
The Army Corps of Engineers is still conducting the Environmental Impact Study. In May, the Corps indicated that its work may not be finalized until 2025, the Bismarck Tribune reported.
In another pending case related to DAPL, North Dakota seeks $38 million from the federal government for costs the state claims it suffered as a result of the 2016 and 2017 protests. That lawsuit went to trial earlier this year. A federal judge is expected to rule in the case in the coming months. (2)

Yes, it’s time we get aggressive with lawsuits against the environmental left.

(1) Daily Caller/David Blackmon (Aug 11, 2024) – Lawsuit Aims To Hold Environmental Group Accountable For Pipeline Protests

(2) North Dakota Monitor (Jul 26, 2024) – Greenpeace attorneys seek dismissal of lawsuit over Dakota Access Pipeline protest

The Word Merchant

Discussion about this post