Is Europe Still Fighting Lost Energy Wars?

Gulf Insider

22-04-2025

The news came down like a thunderbolt. In a spectacular decision, the Morton County courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota, ordered the environmentalist organizations that comprise Greenpeace to pay $665 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The figure appears a monumental slap in the face to Greenpeace, which was sued by Energy Transfer for 'defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts,' following demonstrations against the pipeline project in 2016 and 2017.
The North Dakota jury did not pull any punches. Greenpeace was declared liable; its methods illegal and its actions harmful. Greenpeace has already announced that it will appeal.
Beyond the legal wrangling, this ruling raises the question: what if this case marks the start of a major transatlantic rift between an America defending its energy interests and a Europe mired in its green romanticism?
Let us look at the facts.
The Dakota Access Pipeline — a nearly 1,900-kilometer artery that carries crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken shale formation to Patoka, Illinois — has been the focus of much passion. As early as 2016, Sioux and Cheyenne Indian tribes, supported by an armada of activists, celebrities and organizations including Greenpeace, denounced the project as threatening sacred tribal lands as well as water resources. Tens of thousands of signatures poured in on petitions, and protests at the construction sites paralyzed the work — all costing Energy Transfer some $300 million in delays and extra costs.
The anger often degenerated into outright violence and large-scale vandalism, much to the annoyance of local populations, who became fed up with these crusaders who had appeared from elsewhere. Faced with this chaos, President Donald J. Trump, freshly inaugurated in 2017, issued a presidential memorandum to speed up the project, while brushing aside what he called an 'incredibly cumbersome and horrific authorization process.'
The pipeline became operational in May 2017. Energy Transfer nevertheless immediately decided to go on a legal offensive. According to Energy Transfer, Greenpeace had orchestrated the demonstrations, financed the disorder and spread lies about the pipeline.
The jury in Mandan, North Dakota, agreed on March 19, 2025, and ruled that Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund Inc. must pay combined damages of $665 million to Energy Transfer, a sum that sounds like a declaration of war on environmentalist NGOs. The days of omnipotence and de facto impunity for environmentalist NGOs were over.
Greenpeace USA is now crying that it will be forced into bankruptcy. Really? With its network of donors — small, large and mega-large — the NGO should be able to bounce back. The signal is clear: in the United States, no one any longer jokes with those who hinder the economy and trample on the rights of others under the guise of idealism.
Meanwhile, Europe is getting restless. Greenpeace International has invoked the European anti-SLAPP directive — an EU initiative to protect individuals, especially journalists and activists, from abusive lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) aimed at silencing criticism or public participation, by providing safeguards like early dismissal of unfounded claims and financial protections. The anti-SLAPP directive, adopted in April 2024 by a European Union always ready to support and finance the most extremist NGOs, concretely aims to immunize these organizations against legal proceedings. Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against Energy Transfer under the anti-SLAPP directive in the Netherlands, in February 2025.
Greenpeace related the incident to broader environmental concerns, according to its statement:
'Based in the Netherlands, Greenpeace International is citing Dutch law on torts and abuse of rights, as well as Chapter V of the EU Directive, adopted in 2024, which protects organisations based in the EU against SLAPPs outside the EU, and entitles them to compensation. The Directive, along with existing Dutch law, paves the way for GPI to pursue remedies against three entities in ET's corporate group… for the damage it has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the SLAPP suits and related actions in the US. Greenpeace International sent Energy Transfer a Notice of Liability in July 2024, summoning it to withdraw its lawsuit in North Dakota and pay damages, or face legal action. Energy Transfer refused to do so.'
Greenpeace would apparently like organizations such as itself to directly or indirectly cause hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, while preventing any court from intervening.
The applicability of the EU anti-SLAPP directive to the judgment in question is doubtful, because: The anti-SLAPP directive in question has not yet entered into force in the Netherlands. It is first and foremost Greenpeace USA that has been found liable (for $400 million) for acts committed in the USA, while the EU's anti-SLAPP directive is solely related to cross-border disputes. According to Article 1 of the anti-SLAPP directive, it pertains to clearly baseless claims or exploitative legal actions in civil cases that have cross-border elements, targeting individuals or entities — known as SLAPP targets — due to their involvement in public participation. The requirement of 'cross-border implications' means that SLAPPs related solely to domestic cases are not covered by the directive. Greenpeace was found liable for activities that led to violence, not for having expressed its opinion. Incitement to violence is not an opinion, and the EU anti-SLAPP directive does not cover acts of violence. Its primary focus is on protecting individuals and entities engaged in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings in civil or commercial matters with cross-border implications.
If judges in the Netherlands nevertheless find in favor of Greenpeace International, anything is possible: such a ruling would be another slap(p) in the face to the United States. Would the Trump administration let stand a new European encroachment on US sovereignty? It looks as if the EU, through this directive, once again is trying to dictate the law on American soil. Transatlantic tensions, already fuelled by trade disputes, issues of free speech, NATO funding and the war in Ukraine, would mount further.
Beyond this legal duel, there is a clash of civilizations at play. On one side, Trump's America, driven by the mantra 'drill, baby, drill' and a newfound pride in fossil fuels. Shale oil and gas, abundant and cheap, have made America the world's leading producer of hydrocarbons. The US is seeing energy independence boosted by massive exports of liquefied natural gas.
On the other side, a Europe stubbornly pursuing its Green Deal, a project as costly as it is illusory, sacrificing its competitiveness on the altar of environmentalist dogma. While in Europe, factories are closing, they are reopening in the United States. The contrast between pragmatism and ideology is striking.
Click here to read more…