The scene outside the county courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota, where a jury held Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages over its support of sometimes violent protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
From The Center Square
By
A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found environmental activist group Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for its activities related to protests of construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Dallas-based Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace over the sometimes violent protests that delayed construction of the pipeline by five months, costing the company lost profits and shareholder value.
A trial over the civil lawsuit began in February and concluded Wednesday, on the second day of deliberations.
Energy Transfer subsidiary Dakota Access LLC installed the roughly 1,200-mile pipeline running from North Dakota to Illinois in 2016 and 2017. In April 2016, a small group of Sioux set up Sacred Stone Camp, a camp to protest the installation of the pipeline under the river on unceded treaty land for fear that the pipeline could leak and contaminate the river and water supply. They also said the pipeline would disrupt sacred burial grounds and other culturally relevant sites.
With funding and other support from environmental activist group Greenpeace and others, the protest grew and eventually attracted international media attention, especially when clashes with law enforcement became violent. Over 100,000 people descended on rural North Dakota in less than a year, many from other states and possibly some from abroad, according to local residents.
Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace, blaming it for the escalation of the protests that delayed completion of the project by five months. The company says the delay cost them lost profits and shareholder value. It sued Greenpeace for $300 million.
Greenpeace maintained its primary involvement in the protests was sending indigenous nonviolent direct action trainers, camping supplies and a biodiesel-powered solar truck to the site and that the lawsuit against it was an attack on First Amendment rights.
This is a developing story.
