Energy Transfer, a Texas pipeline company, accused Greenpeace entities in court on Feb. 26 of coordinating disruptions and defaming the company during the Dakota Access Pipeline’s construction. 

The company seeks substantial damages, alleging Greenpeace's actions delayed the project and harmed its reputation with lenders.

The lawsuit centers on 2016-2017 protests against the pipeline, which crosses the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. 

Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. engaged in trespass, nuisance, and defamation.

Energy Transfer’s attorney, Trey Cox, told jurors Greenpeace paid protesters, supplied blockade materials, organized training, and spread false information. “They didn’t think there would ever be a day of reckoning,” Cox said.

Greenpeace attorneys countered that the claims lacked evidence. They emphasized distinctions between the Greenpeace entities, stating Greenpeace International and the Fund had no direct involvement in the protests. 

Greenpeace USA had limited staff presence, supporting what they described as an Indigenous-led movement.

“This was an Indigenous-led movement by the Native tribes, and we wanted them to have the spotlight,” said Greenpeace USA attorney Everett Jack Jr.

A key point of contention is a letter sent to Energy Transfer’s banks, alleging desecration of sacred sites. 

Greenpeace International attorney Courtney DeThomas defended the letter as free expression, noting numerous organizations signed it. She argued no financial institution was demonstrably influenced by it.

Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace’s actions resulted in over $82 million in security and contractor costs, $80 million in lost profits, and $68 million in lost financing. Cox asserted the delays, caused by Greenpeace, forced the pipeline’s completion to be pushed back five months.

Greenpeace disputes these claims, arguing it had no role in Energy Transfer's financing or operational delays. They also challenge the company’s damage calculations and lack of expert testimony on reputational harm. 

The trial will determine the extent of Greenpeace’s involvement and the validity of Energy Transfer’s claims.