(C) North Dakota Monitor
This story was originally published by North Dakota Monitor and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Dakota Access Pipeline developer outlines damage claims, rests case against Greenpeace • North Dakota Monitor [1]
['Mary Steurer', 'Joshua Haiar', 'More From Author', '- March', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar', 'Where Img']
Date: 2025-03-10
The $300 million trial between Dakota Access Pipeline developer and Greenpeace reached the halfway mark on Monday as the company wrapped up its side of the case.
Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace aided and abetted criminal behavior by protesters during demonstrations against the pipeline in 2016 and 2017, and deliberately defamed the company to pressure banks to pull their financing for the project.
Greenpeace denies all of Energy Transfer’s claims and has called the lawsuit a veiled effort to chill environmental advocacy.
More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage
Among the slew of witnesses called by Energy Transfer were three experts who testified the company incurred up to about $265 million in additional expenses as a result of the anti-Dakota Access Pipeline movement. The experts said they weren’t on the stand to prove Greenpeace caused those losses, but to provide an analysis of the company’s own financial records.
Energy Transfer traces about $75.7 million of that back to direct damages from the demonstrations, one consultant who testified for the energy company said last week.
The majority of that money — roughly $60.1 million — was spent on security, said Robert Trout, a California-based forensic economist.
Another $7 million went toward public relations consultants. Additional PR services were necessary to counter negative publicity surrounding the pipeline, Trout said.
Records indicated that Energy Transfer first retained the PR consultants for this purpose in July 2016. This was several months before Greenpeace made any of the statements about the pipeline that Energy Transfer claims were defamatory, attorneys for the environmental group pointed out.
The $75.7 million also included $8.5 million for the Cannonball Ranch — a plot of land along the pipeline route near Lake Oahe, a reservoir on the Missouri River that was a major focal point of the protests. Energy Transfer has claimed previously it paid roughly double market value for the property.
Greenpeace attorneys argued that Trout’s claim that Energy Transfer lost $8.5 million buying the ranch isn’t reliable because he does not have experience appraising property.
Another expert called to the stand last week, construction consultant Chris Sullivan, testified that Energy Transfer indirectly suffered an additional $14.6 million in unplanned expenses through two of its contractors, Michels and Precision Pipeline. That money was spent on additional security, repairing or replacing vandalized equipment as well as higher labor expenses due to construction delays, Sullivan said.
A third expert witness, energy and technology consultant David Leathers, testified that Energy Transfer lost out on $80 million in revenue because the Dakota Access Pipeline started commercial operations roughly five months later than originally planned. Energy Transfer also delayed refinancing its construction loan for the pipeline by roughly two years, which Leathers says cost it another $68.3 million to $96.4 million.
Steven Caplow, an attorney representing Greenpeace, said that Greenpeace cannot be held accountable for the refinancing costs because Energy Transfer’s own internal records indicate that the company chose to delay refinancing the loan because of a lawsuit between Standing Rock and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Greenpeace asks judge for early ruling
Before Greenpeace opened its case Monday, attorneys for the environmental group asked Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion to rule in their favor and end the trial early.
Everett Jack, who represents Greenpeace’s United States affiliate in the lawsuit, said that Energy Transfer has presented no evidence directly linking Greenpeace’s actions to damages suffered by the company.
Energy Transfer did not offer any proof that any employee from Greenpeace ever trespassed on the company’s property, harmed its equipment or obstructed construction of the pipeline, Jack said.
He said the company likewise showed no meaningful evidence Greenpeace aided and abetted others in harming the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Jack also addressed Energy Transfer’s defamation claims, which are based on nine statements Greenpeace made about the pipeline during and after the demonstrations.
Current and former Greenpeace employees who testified in the case said that they believed all of those statements to be true at the time they were made, he said. Many witnesses openly said they still stood by the statements.
Trey Cox, lead attorney representing Energy Transfer in the lawsuit, pushed back against Jack’s allegations that the plaintiffs had offered “no evidence” to support its claims.
“We spent seven days putting hundreds of pages and hundreds of documents in the record,” Cox said.
Gion denied the motion. He told the parties from the bench that it’s generally “frowned on” in North Dakota for judges to render a verdict in the middle of a trial
The trial, which started in Morton County District Court on Feb. 24, is being tried before a nine-person jury. It’s scheduled for a total of five weeks.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/10/dakota-access-pipeline-developer-outlines-damage-claims-rests-case-against-greenpeace/
Published and (C) by North Dakota Monitor
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/ndmonitor/
