Greenpeace is being sued by Energy Transfer for its role in the protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline

A win by Energy Transfer will likely bankrupt Greenpeace in the U.S.

The 10,740 tons of trash generated by 10,000 people protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline cost $1.1 million in federal funds to clean up.

The world watched the months-long protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017 as if it were a soap opera. The circus-like atmosphere prompted over 10,000 people worldwide to travel to North Dakota and join the party, which lasted 10 months, from April 1, 2016, to February 23, 2017.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, sometimes called DAPL, is a 1,172-mile crude oil pipeline stretching from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to the Patoka Oil Terminal in southern Illinois. Energy Transfer, a Dallas-based oil and gas company, developed the $3.8 billion project, designed to transport up to 570,000 barrels of oil per day.

Construction began in 2016 but came to a halt a few months later due to protests by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It quickly became a flashpoint for anti-fossil fuels groups and Indigenous rights concerns, particularly over a segment of the pipeline that crosses under Lake Oahe, a reservoir on the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation in North Dakota.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe argued that the pipeline threatened their water supply, violated their treaty rights, and endangered sacred cultural sites. They claimed the federal government failed to consult them during the planning process. In April 2016, tribal members established the “Sacred Stone Camp” near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, to resist construction. This sparked the “NoDAPL” movement, one of the largest pipeline protests in U.S. history.

Over the next several months, thousands of people—Indigenous activists from over 300 tribal nations, self-proclaimed environmentalists, and some just looking for a good party—joined the encampments. Protests escalated through 2016 and into early 2017, with demonstrators engaging in activities designed to block construction and damage equipment. Greenpeace, known for its activism against fossil fuels, got involved. The protests delayed the pipeline’s completion, prompting the Obama administration to pause construction in late 2016 for further environmental review.

On January 24, 2017, just four days into his presidency, Donald Trump signed an executive memorandum directing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite DAPL’s approval, reversing Obama’s pause. On February 7, 2017, the Corps granted the easement, allowing construction to resume under Lake Oahe. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, then a state official and now President Trump’s Interior Secretary, set a February 22 deadline for protesters to leave the Oceti Sakowin Camp. On February 23, law enforcement forcibly evicted the remaining 100–200 occupants, arresting 46, finally ending the ten-month-long assault on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Energy Transfer filed its initial lawsuit against Greenpeace and other groups, including BankTrack and Earth First!, on August 22, 2017, in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota. After the federal case was dismissed, Energy Transfer filed its lawsuit in North Dakota state court on February 21, 2019. This case went to trial on February 24, 2025, in Mandan, North Dakota.

The Energy Transfer lawsuit alleges that Greenpeace defamed the company by spreading false statements, including claims that the pipeline ran through Standing Rock Sioux Tribe reservation land, desecrated sacred sites, and used excessive force against protesters. Energy Transfer also claims tortious interference with its business, asserting Greenpeace’s actions, such as urging banks to pull financing, disrupted contracts and cost them nearly $300 million.

Greenpeace denies these allegations, asserting that it played only a supporting role, not a leadership one, in the protests. The group argues the lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which they claim corporations use to silence critics through costly litigation. Greenpeace contends that a loss could bankrupt its U.S. operations, ending over 50 years of environmental advocacy, and set a dangerous precedent for free speech and protest rights.

My take

There is a lot at stake with this trial. If Energy Transfer wins, which it should, it will establish a precedent that activist organizations can be held liable for reputational damage and economic losses caused by their actions. Greenpeace operations in the U.S. would likely cease.

A win by Energy Transfer would deter the radical activism that has resulted in a shortage of natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure in the U.S. and align with the re-emergence of a pro-industry political climate.

A win by Energy Transfer will boost President Trump’s plan to “Restore American Energy Dominance,” established on February 14, 2025, co-chaired by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

A win by Energy Transfer will promote President Trump’s “drill baby drill” policy and his plan for American Energy Dominance.

A win by Energy Transfer and its CEO and Chairman Kelcy Warren will be a win for the country.

Thank you for reading “Thoughts about Energy and Economics.” This publication is reader-supported, so please “Like” it, share it with friends and colleagues, and become a paid subscriber. Your support is greatly appreciated!