“Battle in the Courtroom: Energy Transfer vs. Greenpeace – A Fight for Millions”

In a North Dakota courtroom on Wednesday morning, lawyers for the pipeline company Energy Transfer and environmental group Greenpeace began their arguments in a civil trial that could have significant financial implications for Greenpeace.

The lawsuit centers around Greenpeace’s role in protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. The pipeline, which transports crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, faced delays in 2016 and 2017 due to legal challenges and protests.

Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million in damages from Greenpeace, alleging that the environmental group’s actions led to financial losses, construction delays, and increased security and public relations expenses. Energy Transfer’s lead lawyer, Trey Cox, claimed that Greenpeace had organized and funded unlawful protests.

Greenpeace’s lead lawyer, Everett Jack Jr., countered these claims by providing a detailed timeline of events, stating that Greenpeace played a minor role in the protests, which were primarily led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The tribe had raised concerns about the pipeline’s impact on their water supply and sacred sites.

The protests escalated into confrontations between protesters, law enforcement, and private security forces in 2016. Jack argued that Greenpeace only became involved after these conflicts had already begun and that their intention was to de-escalate tensions and provide aid to protesters.

During the trial’s jury selection process, it was noted that many prospective jurors had ties to the oil and gas industry or local law enforcement, potentially giving Energy Transfer an advantage. The selected jury consists of eight women and three men, including two alternates.

Lawyers for Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund, two other entities named in the lawsuit, asserted that these organizations were separate from the protests and should not be held liable.

The trial is expected to last five weeks, with both sides presenting evidence and arguments to support their respective claims. The outcome of this trial could have significant implications for both Energy Transfer and Greenpeace.