Oh, this is slick.
Many moons ago, the cretins at Greenpeace allowed their emotions to get out of hand. And instead of peacefully protesting at a pipeline site by dressing up as Shamu and lying in front of a bulldozer, they got a little frisky.
On March 19 of this year, a North Dakota jury awarded a stunning amount in damages to the owner and developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer, for damages incurred by the company after Greenpeace and its associates blockaded, protested, and sabotaged parts of the pipeline under construction in 2016 and 2017.
Greenpeace was hit with a $667 million judgement today. 💰
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) March 19, 2025
A North Dakota jury ruled in favor of Energy Transfer, a Texas-based pipeline company which had sued Greenpeace over orchestrating protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline a decade ago.
Greenpeace said that being hit… pic.twitter.com/4V1bRF9JnZ
...Greenpeace said that being hit with a $300 million suit would be enough to shut down their operations in the United States. What the jury awarded is more than twice that amount.
The number was so big, the lawyers for Greenpeace said it couldn't possibly be 'allowed to stand.' That's how bad it was.
Attorneys for Greenpeace argued this week that a jury’s decision ordering it to pay $667 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline cannot stand.
A Morton County jury delivered the verdict on March 19 after more than three weeks of trial. Jurors found the environmental group responsible for damages related to anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, as well as for publishing defamatory statements about Energy Transfer.
Greenpeace says the jury’s decision was not based on fact, but bias against the protest movement.
“What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community’s desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,” said Everett Jack, an attorney representing Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate.
The arguments followed a hearing earlier this month during which Greenpeace asked Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reduce the $667 million award if he moves forward with a judgment against the environmental group.
Energy Transfer wants Gion to uphold the jury’s decision in full.
The award includes more than $200 million of compensatory damages — or money meant to make the plaintiffs whole for financial harms — and another roughly $400 million in punitive damages.
...The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm.
Considering the evidence the company put forth at the hearing and the damages they incurred, I dunno. It sounds as if the little rascals got off lightly to me.
At least no one got shot.
Kudos to the pipeline company for not sitting still and simply sucking it up.
WHAT THEY DID WAS WRONG AND THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT
...The Dakota Access Pipeline saga started a decade ago when activists descended on North Dakota in hope of halting the project. During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers.
The chaos delayed the project, costing the parent company and partner entities an estimated $7.5 billion or more. The federal government was ordered to pay North Dakota $28 million in damages. Kelcy Warren, then Energy Transfer’s CEO, didn’t take those losses sitting down. “What they did to us is wrong,” he said in 2017 of the environmental groups behind the demonstrations, “and they’re going to pay for it.”
Energy Transfer started digging and tracked down the Greenpeace ringleaders. All the, 'Hey! Wasn't us!' in the world didn't count for anything when Energy Transfer scored an email from the head Greenpeace USA honcho bragging about the 'massive' support they'd provided to the operatives at the site.
BUSTED
...Energy Transfer identified two U.S.-based Greenpeace entities and the umbrella group Greenpeace International as the ringleaders responsible for the pipeline fiasco. During a three-week trial in March, the pipeline company presented evidence that Greenpeace personnel funded and trained protestors and even equipped them with lockboxes to chain themselves to pipeline equipment. It also said that Greenpeace attempted to deprive the project of funding by falsely claiming the pipeline would encroach on tribal land. Greenpeace tried to distance itself from the violent conflict surrounding the pipeline. But the group couldn’t take back a 2016 email from Greenpeace USA’s executive director stating the “massive” support it provided to the protests. The jury returned a nine-figure verdict, including $400 million in punitive damages.
In October, all the whining about the dollar amount of the jury award seemed to have reached the judge's ears during his review, and, as in most of these cases, it was reduced substantially to $345M. The judge found several technicalities to justify his decision.
It was still a hefty amount in any event and enough to put Greenpeace USA out of business permanently.
...A jury awarded the company, Energy Transfer, $667 million after a trial in March, in which the company accused Greenpeace of orchestrating protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation south of Bismarck, N.D. Greenpeace countered that it had played only a supporting role in peaceful protest activity.
Judge James D. Gion, who presided over the trial in county court in Mandan, N.D., wrote in an 18-page ruling dated Oct. 28 that the three-week trial had required the jury to consider an overwhelming amount of evidence. He adjusted the award based on technical matters of law. For example, in some instances Energy Transfer had accused Greenpeace of trespassing but did not demonstrate ownership of the land in question, he found. Judge Gion also reduced the amount of damages awarded for defamation.
Greenpeace had warned that the outsize verdict could force its American wing into bankruptcy. On Wednesday, Marco Simons, the interim general counsel for Greenpeace USA, said the group was still analyzing the ruling, which lowered the award to roughly $345 million from $667 million.
In fact, finances are a bit tight at Greenpeace USA's headquarters right now. I guess the grift isn't as good as it used to be, and when consequences for actions arrive - which never used to happen - it must throw everything off.
...Greenpeace USA doesn’t appear have enough assets to cover this fine (approx. $4.8 million US net assets in 2023 according to ProPublica), so perhaps they are trying to cut their losses? Sacrifice the US branch, but shield the main parent organisation in the Netherlands from a fine which could devastate their finances? According to 2024 accounts, Greenpeace International has approx €90 million in assets.
So what's a broke bunch of eco-terrorists do when their backs are against a wall they haven't spraypainted or defaced? Perhaps an appeal is made all the way up through the ND court system. You know, the way it works for the rest of us?
Nah.
Why, they can run to their nannies in Europe and try to pull a fast one.
Americans know that cases, ultimately, end in theSupreme Court. Greenpeace asks: But what if they didn't? Having violated American law and been found liable for big $$ damages by a jury of their peers, Greenpeace ran, tail between its legs, to Europe. This is VERY bad. pic.twitter.com/RONWoZwlgl
— Eric W. (@EWess92) December 8, 2025
This is an extraordinarily slick move on their part, because the way European law is written, there is an 'imbalance' considered between who damaged and who is asking for that damage to be made right. Poor little old Greenpeace is going to play David to Energy Transfer's Goliath and argue they shouldn't be subject to such excessive punishment, just because the corporation is so huge.
Also, in Europe, activists are protected when they destroy things in the name of their protest because they can claim the suit was brought against them in an effort to stifle their protest by a much larger, more powerful organization or corporation.
...Energy Transfer’s new legal strategy is focused on a separate and novel countersuit, filed against it in the Netherlands. There, Greenpeace International is suing Energy Transfer based on a new European Union directive aimed at reining in what are known as SLAPP lawsuits, or those aimed at stifling free speech. (SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.)
Many U.S. states also have laws against SLAPP suits, but not North Dakota.
In a brief in the Dutch court, Greenpeace International said the powerful and politically connected company had brought the case, and an earlier lawsuit in federal court, precisely to bury its critics in costly litigation. Energy Transfer is led by Kelcy Warren, a Trump donor and billionaire who has spoken bluntly about the case.
'Trump donor' has nothing to do with an almost ten-year-old sabotage and vandalism case in the US. It would have everything to do with it in a court in Amsterdam.
Greenpeace causes *billions* of damage to an American company. They're being asked to pay millions in damages. Seems unfair (to the company). But arguing that they're just a David to the Co's Goliath, Greenpeace says it's unfair. They have to be allowed to win? No way! pic.twitter.com/ZnjjVEPTNg
— Eric W. (@EWess92) December 8, 2025
The upside, much like the innerweb regulations the UK is attempting to enforce on American companies?
European courts of any stripe have zero authority or standing in the United States.
...American courts and lawmakers must stand up to Europe’s frontal assault on our judicial sovereignty. In climate, data, banking and digital services, EU leaders are flexing their muscle not economically or militarily, but by setting standards that purport to regulate business activities around the world. The extraterritorial reach of European law has become an all-too-common means of forcing global competitors to play by European rules.
Luckily attempts like this are unlikely to succeed. There are no treaties allowing foreign courts to bind, let alone review, judgements over Americans and American entities in America.
— Adam Mahler (@MahlerAdam) December 8, 2025
The Dutch court would hopefully kick this, but the judgement would remain enforceable.
And it needs to stay that way.
Thank God for 5 November once again.
I can't wait 'til the collection calls start at headquarters.
At HotAir, we’ve been dealing with real government suppression of free speech for YEARS. Despite the threats and consequences, we refuse to go silent and remain committed to delivering the truth.
But we can't do it without your support.
Please help Ed, David, John, and me continue fighting back against government censorship by joining our terrific HotAir VIP community today. Use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
And thank you so much again for being here with us at HotAir.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member