Trial Commences Over Greenpeace's Alleged Role in Dakota Access Pipeline Protests**

Energy Transfer accuses Greenpeace of inciting protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline that caused significant financial harm, while Greenpeace defends its role, claiming only a minor involvement.**

In a dramatic turn of events, a civil trial has begun in Mandan, North Dakota, centered on the contentious protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline's owner, Energy Transfer, is pursuing $300 million in damages from Greenpeace, arguing that the environmental organization’s actions incited large-scale mobilizations that severely impacted their financial standing and project timeline.

The legal skirmish, unfolding on a quiet Wednesday morning in the Morton County courthouse, delves deep into the protests that erupted in 2016 and 2017, when thousands united to contest the controversial construction of the pipeline. This project, which conveys crude oil from North Dakota through multiple states to an Illinois transfer point, faced widespread delays amidst fierce opposition from activists and local communities.

Energy Transfer has alleged that Greenpeace is culpable for these interruptions, with lead attorney Trey Cox asserting that the organization effectively orchestrated protests that detrimentally affected financing, construction schedules, and security operations for the pipeline. He presented the case as a significant moment for accountability, dubbing it a “day of reckoning” for the environmental group.

Countering these claims, Greenpeace's lead attorney, Everett Jack Jr., outlined a timeline aimed at disproving allegations of direct involvement in the protests that attracted a staggering 100,000 attendees. He emphasized that Greenpeace's role in the demonstrations was relatively minimal, framing the struggle as a broader movement rather than one solely instigated by his clients.

As the trial continues, the potential ramifications extend beyond the courtroom—this case could potentially change the landscape for environmental advocacy organizations facing similar legal challenges in the future.