MANDAN, N.D. – Greenpeace used malicious and deceptive tactics to disrupt the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and keep it from going forward, an attorney for the company behind the project said Monday.
But attorneys for the environmental advocacy group said during their closing arguments that Greenpeace had little involvement with the 2016-17 protests that are central to the case.
Recommended Videos
A North Dakota jury began deliberating Monday after a weekslong trial over Dallas-based Energy Transfer's argument that Greenpeace defamed the company and disrupted the project.
What is the case about?
The energy company and its subsidiary Dakota Access accused Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, civil conspiracy, trespass, nuisance and other acts, and is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
Nine jurors and two alternates heard the case after it went to trial in late February. Their verdict will include what damages, if any, to award.
Trey Cox, an attorney for the pipeline company, highlighted damages per claim totaling nearly $350 million.
The lawsuit is linked to the protests against the oil pipeline and its controversial Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a risk to its water supply. The pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.
What did the company say?
Cox said Greenpeace exploited a small, disorganized, local issue to promote its agenda, calling Greenpeace “master manipulators” and “deceptive to the core.”
Greenpeace paid professional protesters, organized or led protester trainings, shared intelligence of the pipeline route with protesters and sent lockboxes for demonstrators to attach themselves to equipment, Cox said.
Among a number of alleged defamatory statements were that the company deliberately desecrated burial grounds during construction, which Cox said was done to harm Energy Transfer’s reputation in the international investment community. The company made 140 slight adjustments to its route to avoid disturbing sacred or cultural sites, he said.
Greenpeace’s “lies impacted lenders,” Cox said. Energy Transfer suffered $96 million in lost financing and $7 million in public relations costs, he said.
The pipeline was delayed by five months, and the company lost $80 million because it couldn’t turn on the spigot on Jan. 1, 2017, when oil was to start flowing, Cox said.
He asked the jury to find the Greenpeace entities liable.
“It needs to be done for Morton County. It needs to be done for Morton County’s law enforcement and the next community where Greenpeace exploits an opportunity to push its agenda at any cost,” Cox told the jury, referring to the county where the protests were centered.
How did Greenpeace respond?
Attorneys for Greenpeace said Energy Transfer didn't prove its case or meet its legal burden for defamation or damages, that Greenpeace employees had little or no presence or involvement in the protests, and that Greenpeace had nothing to do with the company's delays in construction or refinancing.
A letter signed by leaders of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA and sent to banks involved in the project's construction loan contained the alleged defamatory statement about desecrating burial grounds, which Cox equated to digging up dead bodies.
Greenpeace International attorney Courtney DeThomas said the other side hasn't shown how the one act of signing a letter with 500 other organizations damaged them, and that the letter would have been sent to the banks with or without Greenpeace's name on it. Thousands of protesters were already at Standing Rock by the time the letter was signed, she said.
Greenpeace USA attorney Everett Jack Jr. disputed the company's claims as including costs from months before and years after the protests, with no witnesses to say that the Greenpeace entities were the cause.
Jack also said no law enforcement officers or any of Energy Transfer's security personnel testified that Greenpeace was the cause of any violence or property destruction, or was a leader, organizer or instigator in the protests. He said law enforcement “did a phenomenal job of watching the protests.”
Greenpeace representatives have criticized the lawsuit as an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and called it a critical test of free speech and protest rights. An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.
