ND (AP) MANDAN — Attorneys for the Texas Pipeline Company said in court Wednesday that they have renewed the company to lenders, proving the coordinated delays and disruptions of various Greenpeace entities in the construction of the controversial oil pipeline in North Dakota.
Greenpeace’s lawyer told the ju judge that there was no evidence to support the Dallas-based energy transfer claim.
The incident is linked to the Dakota Access Pipeline and its controversial 2016 and 2017 protests of the Missouri River, upstream of the Standing Rocksou reservations. Tribes have long been opposed to the pipeline as a risk of its water supply. The pipeline was completed in 2017.
Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access alleges trespassing, nuisance, honor and other crimes by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International and its American branch, Greenpeace USA. The lawsuit is based on Greenpeace Fund Inc., the group’s funding unit.
Greenpeace came to the area, sent blockade supplies, trained protesters who organized or led protesters, handed “critical Intel” to protesters, and was not true to stop the pipeline being built, plaintiffs’ lawyer Trey Cox told the ju judge in his opening statement.
“They didn’t think there would be a day for calculations, but that day starts today,” Cox said in a statement.
Defendant’s lawyers emphasized what they said was a distinction between various Greenpeace entities, such as what they do and how they are organized.
They said Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund Inc. were not involved in the protest, but Greenpeace USA had six employees at Standing Rock for 5 to 51 days. Greenpeace is engaged in non-violence and was only involved in Standing Rock for tribal outreach, the lawyer said.
“This is an Indigenous, Indigenous-led move and we wanted them to be in the spotlight,” said Greenpeace USA Attorney Everett Jack Jr.
One of nine honor-loss statements — the energy transfer that was the removal of burial sites and culturally important places during construction — was made multiple times by the tribe before either of the Greenpeace statements, he said.
Cox said the statement was sent to Energy Transfer Bank and was included in a letter signed by the executive directors of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA.
He added that 140 adjustments have been made to the pipeline route to honor the sacred place of energy transfer.
“Our goal was to be a great corporate citizen in North Dakota,” Cox said.
More than 500 organizations from more than 50 countries have signed the letter, Greenpeace International Attorney Courtney said he described it as an act of free expression.
Financial institutions will not testify that thousands of protesters have received, read or been affected by letters signed after they have already been in Standing Rock.
Greenpeace representatives say the lawsuit is a company that abuses the legal system and chases critics, and is an important test of freedom of speech and right to protest. An energy transfer spokesman said the incident was about Greenpeace, not free speech, but rather unaccompanying the law.
Greenpeace says the lawsuit is chasing $300 million, citing figures from previous federal cases. The complaint in the suit seeks damages in the amount proven in court.
For Greenpeace, energy transfers incurred more than $82 million in security, contractors and property costs, and lost $80 million in profits, Cox told the ju judge. The pipeline was to be completed by January 1, 2017, but the oil had not been running until five months later, he said.
He said Greenpeace’s “scared and scared of lenders,” and the energy transfer lost half of the bank. The company struggled with more than $68 million in funding and spent $7.6 million on public relations “to address these issues and lies from the Whisper Campaign,” Cox said.
However, Jack said Greenpeace had nothing to do with delays in running the company or refinancing. He also challenged the way energy transfer claims or calculates its damages. The company also has no experts supporting claims of reputational harm, he said.
The judge’s choice comes at the beginning of the week, with an estimated five weeks of trial ongoing. Nine ju apprentices and two alternatives hear the incident in Mandan, North Dakota.
The company filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in 2017, and was rejected by a judge in 2019. Energy Transfer then filed a lawsuit in state court.
Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed an anti-inducing lawsuit in the Amsterdam District Court for energy transfer, saying the company should act incorrectly and pay costs and damages arising from its “valuable” lawsuit.
