Latest news with #AccessPipeline
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to ‘punish' someone for pipeline protests
Snow covers the ground at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 3, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D. (Photo by) 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. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage 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. Energy Transfer's core argument is that Greenpeace trained protesters to wage violent attacks to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline and that it deliberately published false statements to sabotage the company's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that sent representatives to south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the lawsuit is an attempt to discourage environmental activism. During a Tuesday hearing, attorneys representing the environmental group doubled down on their claims that Energy Transfer presented no concrete evidence during the trial that Greenpeace caused the company to suffer financially. The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm. Only Greenpeace USA had employees at the protests. Greenpeace USA says it had six staff members visit to provide peripheral support to the Indigenous-led demonstrations, including supplies and nonviolent trainings. Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox argued that Gion has no reason not to honor the jury's verdict. Cox said the acts the jury found Greenpeace liable for — including defamatory speech, trespassing and abuse of property — do not count as constitutionally protected speech. 'They're trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment,' he said. Cox said Greenpeace is willfully ignoring documentation Energy Transfer presented to the jury linking Greenpeace personnel to attacks against the pipeline, and that the jury's decision is the most important indicator of the evidence's credibility. Attorneys also asked Gion to toss the jury's verdict finding the three organizations liable for defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace published nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline that harmed the energy company's business relationships. In the United States, the standard for proving defamation claims is high — especially for individuals and organizations in the public eye. Greenpeace attorneys said the nine statements don't meet this threshold for multiple reasons. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million For one, each of the nine statements was either factually true or reflected opinions about what happened at Standing Rock, Jack said. Energy Transfer also did not demonstrate that Greenpeace made the statements knowing they were false or with 'reckless disregard' for their veracity, which are other key standards required for proving defamation, he added. Greenpeace has also said it was not the first to circulate the statements, and that they were contemporaneously published by hundreds of other organizations and media outlets. Judges must act as the 'gatekeeper' on defamation claims to make sure the decision does not violate free speech rights, Adam Caldwell, an attorney representing Greenpeace International, argued. This standard was set in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on defamation New York Times v. Sullivan, he said. Jack also argued that under North Dakota law, proving a defamation claim requires that a third party testify that they believe the statements in question are defamatory. He said none of Energy Transfer's witnesses fulfilled this requirement. He pointed to the testimony of Greenpeace employees who said they believed the statements were true and came from credible sources. Cox said jurors likely rejected this testimony as unconvincing. 'Given the very large exemplary damage award, we can readily infer that this jury found these witnesses to be liars,' Cox said. 'We found them to be concealing things, to be hiding things, to be non-credible.' Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — which does not engage in organizing activities — say Energy Transfer has no right to involve them in the case. Neither had any personnel visit North Dakota. Greenpeace International says it is not subject to the court's jurisdiction because it is a Netherlands-based organization that was not involved in the protests. 'The only evidence was affirmative evidence from International that it had never set foot in North Dakota,' Caldwell said. 'It's a textbook case of lack of personal jurisdiction.' While Greenpeace International did sign onto a letter that included two of the statements the jury found defamatory, it was one of more than 500 signatories, he said. Greenpeace Fund similarly said there was no evidence linking it to the case. 'We shouldn't be here,' said Matt Kelly, an attorney representing the organization. Energy Transfer has argued that Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International conspired with Greenpeace USA on its anti-pipeline efforts. The jury found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA liable for conspiracy, but not Greenpeace Fund. Gion took the motions under advisement. The parties also recently presented arguments on a separate set of motions asking Gion to reduce the jury's nearly $667 million award against Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims the award exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. If the jury's decision is allowed to stand, defendants have the option to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International have disclosed their intent to appeal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Here's Why Energy Transfer Stock Is a Buy Before May 6
President Donald Trump's unpredictable tariffs drove many investors from stocks toward more conservative investments over the past few months. However, many panicked investors tossed out the babies with the bathwater during that washout, and many stocks that were actually well-insulated from tariffs were unfairly crushed. One of those stocks was Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET), which will release its next earnings report on May 6. I'll explain why it's a tariff- and recession-resistant investment and worth accumulating today as the broader market swoons. Energy Transfer is a midstream company that provides pipeline, storage, and terminalizing services for natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and refined products. By building that transportation infrastructure, it serves as a "toll-road operator" between upstream extraction companies and downstream refining companies. Energy Transfer operates more than 125,000 miles of pipeline across 44 states, and its NGL exports account for about a fifth of the global market. Economic downturns can hurt upstream and downstream companies by reducing oil and natural gas prices. However, midstream pipeline companies generally aren't affected by those price swings because they simply collect the tolls on its infrastructure. That makes Energy Transfer an ideal stock to hold during these uncertain times. Energy Transfer faced some protests from government regulators, environmental organizations, and Native American tribes over safety and territorial concerns in recent years. A major flashpoint for those conflicts was the Dakota Access Pipeline, in which Energy Transfer owns a 38.2% stake, during its construction in 2016 and 2017. However, the Trump Administration wants domestic energy companies to ramp up their production of oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels to reduce the country's dependence on overseas resources. The North Dakota Supreme Court also recently ordered Greenpeace, which actively protested the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, to pay Energy Transfer $660 million in damages. Those developments indicate that the company's toughest regulatory and environmental headwinds are dissipating. Meanwhile, the soaring energy needs for artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud-oriented data centers should generate strong tailwinds for Energy Transfer and other pipeline companies. Energy Transfer is rapidly expanding its capacity across the Permian Basin and recently struck a deal with CloudBurst to pipe natural gas to its flagship AI-oriented data center campus in Central Texas. Energy Transfer is a master limited partnership (MLP), which merges the tax advantages of a private partnership with the liquidity of a public-traded stock. MLPs report their profits through their earnings per unit (EPU) instead of earnings per share (EPS). From 2014 to 2024, Energy Transfer's revenue expanded at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4% as its EPU rose at a CAGR of 8%. From 2024 to 2027, analysts expect the company's revenue and EPU to increase at a CAGR of 5% and 9%, respectively. MLPs generally pay out most of their EPU as dividends. Energy Transfer has raised its dividend annually for 12 consecutive years. It spent nearly 100% of its EPU on its dividends over the past 12 months and pays a hefty forward yield of 8%. By comparison, industry peer Kinder Morgan pays a forward dividend yield of 4.6%. At $16, the stock trades at just 11 times this year's EPU. That low valuation, along with its high yield and resilient business model, should limit Energy Transfer's downside potential. Kinder Morgan, which is growing slightly faster, still trades at 21 times its forward EPU. Energy Transfer isn't an exciting stock, but it's a great safe-haven play for uncertain times. As long as it gives a stable earnings report on May 6 and follows up with a decent outlook for the domestic energy sector, its stock should stay stable. That might be why Energy Transfer's insiders bought seven times as many shares as they sold over the past 12 months. Kinder Morgan's insiders sold 18 times -- as many shares as they bought during the same period. That warmer insider sentiment supports the idea that Energy Transfer is an undervalued dividend play. If you're looking for a reliable safe-haven stock to buy today, Energy Transfer checks all the right boxes. Before you buy stock in Energy Transfer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Energy Transfer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $502,231!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $678,552!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 800% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 156% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of April 14, 2025 Leo Sun has positions in Energy Transfer. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Kinder Morgan. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Here's Why Energy Transfer Stock Is a Buy Before May 6 was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
USA Today
15-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Keystone pipeline restarted after oil spill near North Dakota community
Keystone pipeline restarted after oil spill near North Dakota community Show Caption Hide Caption Oil spills: Lasting impacts of some of the biggest in U.S. history Here are three of the most historic oil spills in U.S. history. Staff video, USA TODAY Pipeline operator South Bow restarted its Keystone oil pipeline system after a spill near a North Dakota community shut down the line for almost a week. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced on April 14 that South Bow restarted the pipeline at a reduced pressure. Earlier in the day, the company monitored inclement weather conditions before proceeding with the planned controlled restart. PHMSA approved the company's restart plan, but only under certain conditions spelled out in a corrective action order issued by the federal regulator on April 11. Several corrective actions in the order included the pressure restriction, mechanical and metallurgical testing of the failed pipe, and submission of a root cause analysis. The company, which is based in Calgary, Canada, has said it will also institute certain pressure restrictions on the Canadian section of the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline shut down on April 8 after an oil spill occurred near Fort Ransom, a community about 80 miles southwest of Fargo, North Dakota. In an update on April 14, PHMSA said the failed section of pipe was excavated and replaced. The failed pipe will be sent to a metallurgical lab in Houston for testing while the repaired line will be "tested at various pressures to confirm its integrity," according to PHMSA. "PHMSA investigators remain on site, and our investigation is ongoing," the regulator said in the update. "PHMSA will continue to monitor the operator's compliance with the (corrective action order)." 'We will not back down': Greenpeace ordered to pay more than $660M for Dakota Access Pipeline protests Keystone oil spill estimated at 3,500 barrels Bill Suess, spill investigation program manager with the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, told The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead that an employee heard a "mechanical bang" and shut down the pipeline within two minutes. Suess said the employee noticed oil surfacing in a nearby field. Following the incident, South Bow reported that it began a shutdown and response at about 7:42 a.m. local time on April 8 after "control centre leak detection systems detected a pressure drop in the system." The system was shut down at 7:44 a.m., the company said in a statement. The company noted that the affected segment was isolated and the release had been contained. The Keystone pipeline was pumping about 17,844 barrels of oil per hour when a part of the pipeline ruptured, spilling an estimated 3,500 barrels, or 147,000 gallons, onto agricultural land, according to Reuters. More: Why a pipeline project in Houston is raising concerns over environmental racism Federal regulator details pattern of spills from Keystone pipeline The Keystone pipeline spans nearly 2,700 miles and is a major channel for crude oil supply from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries in Illinois, Oklahoma, and along the Gulf Coast. In the corrective action order issued by PHMSA, the regulator detailed previous leaks and spills from the Keystone pipeline. Between 2016 and 2022, PHMSA documented at least five accidents involving the Keystone pipeline. A 2021 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office also found 22 spills from the pipeline between 2010 and 2020, according to Reuters. "The spills of 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2022, which resulted in reported releases of 400, 6,592, 4,515, 442, 12,937 barrels of crude oil, respectively, show a tendency or pattern in recent years of increasingly frequent incidents resulting in larger releases," the corrective action order states. PHMSA also noted that the April 8 rupture looked similar to another one on the same pipeline in North Dakota in 2019, in which about 4,515 barrels of crude oil were leaked. Initial findings of PHMSA's investigation showed that the failed pipe in both incidents was manufactured by the Berg Steel Pipe Corporation. Contributing: Chris Mueller, Sioux Falls Argus Leader; Reuters
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge dismisses Standing Rock's latest lawsuit over Dakota Access Pipeline
Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline gather Nov. 1, 2023, in Bismarck ahead of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers public meeting on an environmental impact statement. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposes the pipeline, citing concerns for its water supply. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) A federal judge dismissed the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seeking to shutter the Dakota Access Pipeline, finding that the tribe must wait until the Army Corps finishes a key environmental study to bring another legal challenge against the agency. 'No matter its frustration with Defendants' sluggish pace, it is not yet entitled to a second bite at the apple,' U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote in a Friday order. Standing Rock filed the lawsuit in October, arguing that Corps is violating federal law by allowing the pipeline to operate without an easement. The tribe also claimed that the Corps failed to properly study the environmental impacts of the Dakota Access Pipeline or require its developer to prepare adequate spill response plans, among other alleged violations. The suit is a successor to a lawsuit the tribe filed against the same agency in 2016. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage In that case, Boasberg in 2020 found the Army Corps had violated federal law by not conducting a full environmental impact study before granting an easement allowing the pipeline to cross underneath the Missouri River. He pulled the easement and ordered the Dakota Access Pipeline to be drained of oil pending the Army Corps' completion of the study. An appellate court in 2021 reversed Boasberg's decision to shut down the pipeline, but did not reinstate the easement. Boasberg wrote in a 2021 order following that decision that he could not shutter the pipeline because the tribe hadn't sufficiently demonstrated that it posed an immediate threat of irreparable harm. He noted in his Friday memo that 'remarkably little' has changed in the four years since. 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends,' Boasberg wrote at the beginning of the order, quoting Shakespeare's 'Henry V'. The Army Corps still has not finished the environmental impact study. It published a draft version of its report in late 2023. Once the study is complete, the Army Corps will use it to decide whether to grant the easement again. One of the main arguments the tribe made in its 2024 lawsuit is that the Army Corps' yearslong inaction on the Dakota Access Pipeline is a violation of federal law. Boasberg wrote previously that, given the pipeline is operating on Army Corps land without proper authorization, the agency in the interim could have done something to enforce its property rights. 'The Corps has conspicuously declined to adopt a conclusive position regarding the pipeline's continued operation, despite repeated prodding from this Court and the Court of Appeals to do so,' he wrote in his 2021 order. But the Army Corps for now is not legally required to do anything but finish the environmental impact study, Boasberg stated in the Friday memo. He said that other arguments Standing Rock raised in its complaint seek to relitigate issues that were already decided in the 2016 case, and that the legal landscape is not likely to change until the study is completed. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe files new lawsuit over DAPL Boasberg noted that Standing Rock can file another lawsuit against the Corps once the study is published. The Army Corps of Engineers in legal filings also argued the tribe cannot sue the Corps over the easement when it had not yet made a final decision on the permit. The tribe indicated last fall that it had new evidence to present related to the pipeline's safety. The pipeline company has indicated previously it does not consider that information credible. North Dakota, other states and pipeline owner Dakota Access intervened in the lawsuit on the side of the Corps. The intervenors called on the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the pipeline is important to the country's economy, and that shutting it down would violate states' rights and make road and rail transit less safe. 'The Dakota Access Pipeline has been operating safely for almost eight years now and is a critical piece of infrastructure for North Dakota and our nation's energy security,' North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong said in a statement regarding Boasberg's decision. A spokesperson for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Army Corps of Engineers declined to comment. 'The Corps has failed to act and failed to protect the tribe,' Standing Rock Chairwoman Janet Alkire said in an October press conference announcing the lawsuit. The pipeline, which spans more than 1,000 miles, carries crude oil from northwest North Dakota to Illinois. Its pathway includes unceded land recognized as the Sioux Nation's in 19th century treaties signed by the U.S. government. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
CNN
19-03-2025
- Business
- CNN
Jury finds Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions in relation to pipeline protest damage
A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for millions of dollars in damages to a giant pipeline company in relation to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners sued Greenpeace for $300 million in 2019, accusing the environmental group of masterminding the protests, spreading misinformation and causing the company financial loss through damaged property and lost revenues. After a three-week trial, the 9-person jury took two days to return their verdict. The result is a huge blow to the 50-year-old environmental organization, which previously said that the case could bankrupt its US operations, and experts say it could have chilling implications for free speech. 'I think this is one of the worst First Amendment decisions in American history,' said Marty Garbus, a civil rights lawyer who has been monitoring the trial. 'The decision is beyond comprehension.' Other experts have criticized the lawsuit as an egregious SLAPP lawsuit — a strategic lawsuit against public participation that seeks to silence critics by burying them in exorbitant legal costs. 'The verdict is a loss for Greenpeace, but more so for the First Amendment right to speak out, and thus for all Americans,' said James Wheaton, founder and senior counsel for the First Amendment Project. 'If huge corporations can do this to one they can do it to everyone.' It is not yet clear whether Greenpeace will appeal. The lawsuit revolved around protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in 2016 and 2017. The Standing Rock Sioux fiercely opposed the pipeline, saying it would endanger the Missouri River, their water source, and damage sacred tribal grounds. Many thousands of people, including representatives of more than 100 tribes and dozens of non-profits, joined in the months-long protest. Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of carrying out a scheme to stop the pipeline's construction. During trial opening statements, the company's attorney Trey Cox accused the organization of paying outsiders to come into the area and protest, organizing protester trainings, and making defamatory statements about the pipeline. 'Today, the jury delivered a resounding verdict, declaring Greenpeace's actions wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards. It is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace,' Cox said in a statement. 'This verdict serves as a powerful affirmation of the First Amendment. Peaceful protest is an inherent American right; however, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable,' Cox said. Greenpeace, however, said the claim was a thinly veiled attack on free speech and protest, and was an attempt to make the group responsible for everything that happened at a protest attended by many thousands of people, most of whom were unconnected to Greenpeace. Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing German energy giant RWE for alleged climate change damage, Nick Valencia Peruvian farmer pursues landmark climate case Attorneys for the group argued it had only a minor role at the protest teaching non-violent direct action skills at the request of Indigenous organizers. In relation to the alleged defamatory statements, Greenpeace argued these claims had been widely reported in the media before it ever commented on them. 'We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,' said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace USA. Last month Netherlands-based Greenpeace International filed its own claim against Energy Transfer in a Dutch court using the European Union's anti-SLAPP legislation, seeking to recover the damages and costs the organization has incurred as a result of the company's lawsuits. 'The fight against Big Oil isn't over today, and we know that the truth and the law are on our side. Greenpeace International will continue to campaign for a green and peaceful future. Energy Transfer hasn't heard the last of us in this fight' said Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International's general council in a statement. This story has been updated with more information.
