Lawyers of the Energy Transfer and Greenpeace pipeline have fired their introductory salves in the northern Dakota courtroom on Wednesday morning in a civil trial that could bankrupt a historic environmental group.
The lawsuit revolves around the role played by Greenpeace in huge protests against the construction of Dakota Access pipeline almost ten years ago. The oil pipeline, which carries a raw oil from northern Dakota in several countries until the transfer of Illinois, was postponed for months in 2016 and 2017 in the midst of lawsuits and protests.
The trial began on Wednesday with the opening of arguments in the court in Mandano District in Mandan, ND Greenpeace, says Energy Transfer, built by Dakota Access Pipeline, is looking for a $ 300 million damage.
Energy transfer, one of the largest pipeline companies in the country, accused Greenpeace of encouraging unrest that cost him millions of dollars of lost financing, delays in construction and safety and public relations costs. Trey Cox, his chief lawyer, said the jury of nine people that his team would prove that Greenpeace had planned, organized and funded “illegal protests. He called the trial “a day of computation.”
Everett Jack Jr., Chief lawyer Greenpeace, gave a detailed time lane to raise the aspect of the account, saying that Greenpeace played a smaller role in demonstrations, which has drawn about 100,000 people in the rural area.
The protests were created by the Standing rock Sioux tribe, which claimed that part of the pipeline under the Oaha Lake, on the federal land near its reservation, threatened the water supply and holy places on its ancestral territory. The tribe began to protest in the spring of 2016 and filed lawsuits aimed at stopping pipeline operations. Dakota has been operating since 2017, although the final approval is underway.
Conflicts between protesters, law enforcement and private security forces began in August 2016, said Lawyer Greenpeace, and the number of demonstrants was swollen. Mr. Jack said the protests had already escalated into dangerous conflicts before Greenpeace was involved.
He pointed to September 3, 2016, when he said that private insurance released dogs to people who protested that energy transfer bulldozes in the area where the tribal leader claimed that there were cultural artifacts. It was a conflict that attracted media attention and forced more people to join the protests, but at that time no one from Greenpeace got there, said Mr. Jack.
He said two staff arrived two days after that conflict, to bring a solar truck to ensure electricity. Mr. Jack said Greenpeace advocated for non-violence and that he did not get involved not to encourage unrest, but to help “de-eascal” and provide assistance like a tent and training. He told the jury that there was no evidence to support the claim that Greenpeace was responsible for protests.
In his introductory energy transfer arguments, Mr. Cox quoted the internal E -Mail and publications of Greenpeace, including a letter to the international levers signed by Greenpeace and other groups. This letter, written by Banktrack, a Dutch organization that works on the environmental causes, invited Energy Transfer Borrings to stop the Dakota approach project. Mr. Cox said the campaign was running a project to lose lenders and refinancation at higher rates.
Greenpeace said there was no evidence that banks had made decisions on the basis of a letter signed by more than 500 groups.
During the two -day jury selection, which began on Monday, numerous potential jurors stated that they or their relatives had to do with the oil and gas industry or local officers for the implementation of the laws involved in reacting to protests. This was expected given the prominent and gas industry in the region and could give the transmission of energy in the trial.
The chosen jurors consisted of eight women and three men, including two replacements.
Lawyers for two other entities appointed in a lawsuit, Greenpeace International based in the Netherlands, and Greenpeace Fund based in Washington, also made statements in court. They said their organizations were separated and were not involved in protests.
The trial should last five weeks.
