Greenpeace Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit by Pipeline Developer

By Isaac White

Greenpeace, the well-known environmental advocacy group, is seeking the dismissal of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, a developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The lawsuit accuses Greenpeace of trespassing, vandalism, arson, and assaulting construction workers to halt the pipeline’s construction.

Energy Transfer contends that Greenpeace not only physically impeded construction but also spearheaded a misinformation campaign that temporarily influenced federal decisions and financial backing for the project. On the Greenpeace website, they inform that Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million, asserting that Greenpeace’s actions caused significant financial losses and reputational harm.

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,172-mile-long underground pipeline designed to transport crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region to an oil terminal in Patoka, Illinois. From there, it connects with the Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline, which extends to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Following approval by the Illinois Commerce Commission in 2022, the DAPL has significantly increased the capacity for oil transportation in the region, scaling up from an initial 500,000 to a potential 1.1 million barrels per day.

This pipeline, however, has been at the center of environmental and indigenous rights controversies due to its crossing under Lake Oahe, a reservoir on the Missouri River. This section is just upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and raised fears of water contamination and damage to culturally sacred sites in the event of a leak.

These concerns were magnified by the pipeline’s potential environmental impact, which includes not only the threat of oil spills but also the broader implications for climate change due to increased fossil fuel extraction and transportation.

Protests against the DAPL grew from a small gathering of tribal members into a large-scale movement, drawing support from across the nation and around the world. At their peak, thousands of protesters, including representatives from various tribes, environmentalists, and celebrities, converged on the site.

The demonstrations were marked by their peaceful nature but met with a harsh response from private security and law enforcement, who used water cannons, tear gas, and rubber bullets against protesters. This violent clash was heavily covered by the media and became a pivotal moment in the broader environmental and indigenous rights movements.

Despite the physical and legal challenges faced by the protesters, their efforts brought significant attention to the issues surrounding DAPL and fossil fuel infrastructure in the United States. The protests officially ended in February 2017 when the state government ordered the remaining demonstrators to leave following a series of legal and political setbacks.

The current lawsuit against Greenpeace represents an escalation in the legal conflict surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Energy Transfer Partners alleges that Greenpeace was not just a participant in the protests but a ringleader in orchestrating actions that significantly disrupted the pipeline’s construction.

In 2017, Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in U.S. District Court, asserting that the organization contributed to financial losses and reputational damage through its protest activities. A federal district judge dismissed that case.

Greenpeace’s attorneys have argued for the dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that Energy Transfer has not provided sufficient evidence linking the environmental group to the direct harm claimed. This legal defense highlights the broader issues at play, including the right to protest and the extent to which organizations can be held responsible for the actions of individual protesters.

According to some legal experts, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a legal action initiated primarily to intimidate and silence critics by forcing them to spend time and money defending against it. Some claim these lawsuits typically lack solid legal grounds for winning but are effective in discouraging continued criticism due to the expense and effort required to fight them. In response, Anti-SLAPP statutes have been enacted in some states to allow defendants to quickly dismiss these meritless suits and avoid prolonged legal costs.

The lawsuit between Energy Transfer and Greenpeace has elicited a strong response from various organizations, public figures, and the general public. More than 290 organizations, including prominent groups like 350.org, Public Citizen, ACLU North Dakota, and the Indigenous Environmental Network, have publicly expressed their solidarity with Greenpeace. They, along with celebrities such as Billie Eilish, Jane Fonda, Adam McKay, and Susan Sarandon, signed an open letter condemning the lawsuit and supporting Greenpeace’s efforts to defend environmental and indigenous rights.

The public’s reaction reflects widespread concern over the potential implications of the lawsuit for free speech and environmental advocacy. Many view the legal action as an attempt to suppress legitimate protest against projects that pose environmental risks. This perspective is particularly strong among communities that prioritize environmental protection and uphold the rights of indigenous populations.

The lawsuit between Energy Transfer and Greenpeace could significantly impact protest rights and corporate accountability, influencing future environmental advocacy and corporate strategies. Its outcome is closely watched for potential nationwide implications.