Latest news with #KelcyWarren
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump promised riches from ‘liquid gold' in the US. Now fossil fuel donors are benefiting
Kelcy Warren was among the top donors for Donald Trump's 2024 White House bid, personally pouring at least $5m into the campaign and co-hosting a fundraiser for the then presidential hopeful in Houston. Trump's win appears to already be benefiting Warren and Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline and energy firm of which he is co-founder, executive chair and primary shareholder. 'We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it,' Trump said in his inaugural address. Though domestic fossil fuel production reached record levels under Joe Biden, his policies to boost renewable energy still sparked fear among oil and gas companies, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'There was a threat of moving toward a net zero world … maybe not now, but there was an idea that would happen if Democrats stayed in the White House,' said Jones. For Warren and other oil billionaires, Trump removed that fear, Jones said. Energy Transfer Partners reported a year-over-year increase in profits in the first quarter of this year. In an earnings call last month, company top brass praised the new administration and more supportive regulatory environment. Among Trump's moves that have benefited the company: a day-one move to end Biden's pause on liquefied natural gas exports, which enables Energy Transfer to proceed with a long-sought-after LNG project in Lake Charles. On 13 May, Trump's Federal Energy Commission (Ferc) also granted a three-year extension for the LNG project, which the company said was necessary for the project to succeed. In the week after the Ferc decision, Warren's wealth rose by nearly 10%, noted Sarah Cohen, who directs the climate and wealth inequality-focused non-profit Climate Accountability Research Project (Carp) at the Institute for Policy Studies. 'That decision wouldn't have been possible under Biden's LNG pause,' said Cohen, who calculated the change using the Bloomberg billionaires index. Since that Ferc decision, Energy Transfer Partners has also secured a 20-year deal to supply a Japanese company with up to 1m metric tons of LNG a year. Other Trump orders to 'unleash American energy' and declare an energy emergency to promote fossil fuels despite already booming production, for instance, are set to benefit Energy Transfer Partners by making it easier to expand the use all kinds of fossil fuels, thereby boosting the demand for pipelines. Also fueling that demand: the projected boom in datacenters. Energy Transfer Partners has received requests to power 70 new ones, the Guardian reported in April, marking a 75% rise since Trump took office. By appointing fossil fuel-friendly officials to top positions, such as the former energy CEO Chris Wright to head the energy department and the pro-oil and -gas Doug Burgum to the interior department, Trump has also 'showed his allegiance to companies like Energy Transfer Partners', said Cohen. 'They're really creating this environment that's great for oil and gas,' she said. 'The message is 'We'll give you what you want.'' Energy Transfer did not respond to requests from the Guardian to comment. Warren ranks among the richest 500 people in the world, with Forbes placing his net worth at $7.2bn. He has long deployed his wealth to support the GOP, including by becoming the 13th-largest corporate funder to Trump's Make America Great Again Super Pac last year with a $5m donation. He has also spent his fortune in more eccentric ways. His $30m, 23,000 sq ft Dallas mansion includes a movie theater and bowling alley, and among his other assets are a 8,000-acre ranch near Cherokee, Texas, which is home to zebras, javelinas and giraffes; a 20,000-acre golf resort in Lajitas, Texas; a private island near Roatán, Honduras; and numerous private aircraft, including a Dassault Falcon 900 jet. A lover of folk music, Warren also started a record label in 2007 alongside singer-songwriter Jimmy LaFave, with whom he has also written songs. 'If you hear me now,' goes one song for which Warren penned the lyrics, 'maybe you could pull some strings.' The pipeline mogul accumulated most of his wealth from Energy Transfer Partners, which owns and operates about 130,000 miles of energy infrastructure in the US. In recent months, the firm has been criticized by advocates for its successful lawsuit against the environmental non-profit Greenpeace, which in March yielded a verdict that threatens to bankrupt the organization. Warren has long enjoyed a relationship with the president, donating generously to his first campaign and attending closed-door meetings during his first term. Though Warren is not known to have attended the infamous May 2024 meeting during which Trump asked oil bosses for $1bn and pledged to overturn environmental rules, he did co-host a fundraiser for the president in Houston weeks later. He is one of a handful of the most powerful oil billionaires from Texas, where there are no limits on contributions to candidates and political committees. 'Texas has always been kind of a testing ground for the most extreme politics and issues that the Republicans pursue,' said Matt Angle, founder of the Lone Star Project, a Democratic Pac in the state. 'In Texas, people like him are used to being able to donate to get their way.' Unlike some other Texas energy barons, such as the Christian nationalist Tim Dunn, Warren is not driven by dogma, said Jones. 'Kelcy Warren is not necessarily ideological,' he said. 'He may be in sync with Trump on some other issues, but his support for Donald Trump is largely because of what Trump proposed to do [for] the energy sector.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The reconciliation bill, which the House passed last month and the Senate is now debating, is also expected to be a boon to Energy Transfer Partners and Warren. Known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' act, it is expected to slash Biden-era incentives for renewable energy, tamping down competition in the energy market. A number of more esoteric provisions in the bill will also prove beneficial for the company, according to a review by Carp shared with the Guardian. One provision in the House-approved version, for instance, would allow the Department of Energy to determine that a proposed LNG export facility is in the 'public interest' if the applicant pays $1m – something Energy Transfer Partners could afford to do. It's a 'pay to play' scenario, said Carp co-founder Chuck Collins. Other provisions would expedite the build-out of LNG export infrastructure, force the government to hold lease sales for fossil fuels even when demand is low and reverse protections to allow drilling in some areas without any judicial review. Still others would stymy federal agencies' ability to implement new climate rules by requiring that major changes obtain congressional approval, allow gas developers to pay a $10m fee to bypass permitting processes, limit who can bring lawsuits over gas infrastructure and allow firms to pay taxpayers less to use public land, Carp found. The bill is also set to hand fossil fuel companies massive tax breaks – including by extending tax cuts in the Trump-backed 2017 reconciliation bill, from which Energy Transfer Partners reported a tax benefit of $1.81bn. In one example, the House's version of the bill would reinstate 100% 'bonus depreciation' for qualified properties, allowing companies such as Energy Transfer Partners to completely write off new infrastructure such as pipelines on their taxes, and see the benefits immediately. It's also expected to apply to private jets, Collins noted. Other tax breaks in the proposal are expected to personally benefit ultrawealthy Americans such as Warren. 'The most wealth I've ever made is during the dark times,' Warren told Bloomberg a decade ago. Under Trump, Energy Transfer Partners will also likely save money on pipeline safety compliance. Since the president re-entered the White House in January, enforcement from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has dropped. Across the pipeline industry, the PHMSA opened only four enforcement actions in April, and zero in March – marking the first month since the subagency's 2004 launch when no cases were initiated, E&E News reported. 'That fits right in with the philosophy or paradigm of the Trump 2.0 deregulation agenda,' said Carp's Cohen. A lack of action from the body could lead to savings for Energy Transfer Partners, which has paid millions in fines to the PHMSA. In March, Energy Transfer Partners also sued the PHMSA, claiming that its enforcement system is 'unconstitutional'. Success in the suit could mean the company is forced to pay fewer penalties. Another Trump policy from which Energy Transfer Partners will benefit: an exemption for oil and gas from his new tariffs. The president provided the industry wide shield after a meeting with the American Petroleum Institute lobby group, of which Warren's company is a member. The firm's profits may still be blunted by other tariffs, such as those on aluminum and other products needed for pipeline construction, but the energy sector expects those losses to be offset by the soon-to-be-passed reconciliation bill, Politico reported in April. 'The energy companies would prefer not to have the tariffs, sure,' said Jones. 'But those are not a negative that outweighs what they view as the existential threat that Democrats represent … the existential threat of net zero.'
The Guardian
03-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Revealed: Trump's fossil-fuel donors to profit from data-center boom and green rollbacks
Oil and gas barons who donated millions of dollars to the Trump campaign are on the cusp of cashing in on the administration's support for energy-guzzling data centers – and a slew of unprecedented environmental rollbacks. Energy Transfer, the oil and gas transport company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, has received requests to power 70 new data centers – a 75% rise since Trump took office, according to a new investigation by the advocacy nonprofit Oil Change International (OCI) and the Guardian. The fossil-fuel gold rush threatens to unleash massive amounts of pollution and greenhouse gases while undermining the renewable energy industry. 'Given Energy Transfer's extensive natural gas infrastructure, we continue to believe that we are in the best position to capitalize on the anticipated rise in natural gas demand,' the company told investors in February. The positive shareholder forecast came as Energy Transfer's legal team were in a North Dakota court suing Greenpeace, claiming the environmental group had orchestrated the Standing Rock Indigenous-led protests – in what has been widely condemned as an attack on free speech by advocates and experts. Energy Transfer, among the largest pipeline companies in the US, was the 13th-biggest corporate funder of Trump's Make America Great Again Super Pac last year, according to OpenSecrets, donating $5m, while executive chair Kelcy Warren has been a major Republican donor since 2016. The firm is part of the powerful fracked-gas industry set to use its influence on Trump and the Republican party to make billions in profits from cryptocurrency mining, AI and other data centers – which look likely to proliferate rapidly amid a slew of new incentives and regulatory rollbacks. Data centers may have expanded regardless of last year's election winner, but Trump's victory means a much bigger and faster expansion – and a prioritization of fossil fuel over cleaner types of energy. 'The words that have replaced 'energy transition' are 'AI' and 'data centers',' Mike Sommers, from the powerful lobby group the American Petroleum Institute (API), recently said. 'We're transitioning from the energy transition to the energy reality … we're going to need a lot more oil and gas.' Energy Transfer's first AI deal was announced the day before its investor meeting in February – a long-term agreement with CloudBurst to provide up to 450,000 cubic feet per day of fossil gas to their flagship AI-focused data center development in San Marcos, Texas. Burning this gas for electricity will generate 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per day – the equivalent of 2.4 average US coal plants, according to the EPA greenhouse calculator, or 2.1m cars driven for one year. 'This project represents our first commercial arrangement to supply natural gas directly to a data center site, and it will not be the last,' the company told investors, who reacted favourably to the deal, with Energy Transfer's share price rising 2.1% after it was announced. 'In aggregate, we have now received requests for potential connections to approximately 62 power plants that we do not currently serve in 13 states … In addition, we have now received requests from over 70 prospective data centers in 12 states,' investors were told by executives, outlining how the company is benefiting from the Trump data center and AI boom. Energy Transfer slide shown to investors Earlier this month, a jury with known ties to the fossil-fuel industry found in favor of Energy Transfer and ordered Greenpeace to pay the $65bn oil and gas company $660m in damages – an unprecedented figure that could bankrupt Greenpeace US and chill environmental activism. Greenpeace has said it will appeal. Energy Transfer is not the only fossil-fuel firm ready to benefit from the expected boom in AI and cryptocurrencies. The Guardian/OCI investigation illustrates how the US fracked-gas industry in particular looks set to use its influence on Trump and the GOP to expand operations and make billions in profits from powering data centers – while dumping huge amounts of additional planet-warming gases and other toxins into the atmosphere. The expected gas bonanza comes amid growing climate breakdown, including a slew of deadly and costly disasters in the US in recent months, such as the Los Angeles wildfires and Hurricane Helene in southern Appalachia. More than 150 'unprecedented' climate disasters struck around the world in 2024 – the hottest-ever year on record. The crypto industry was last year's biggest corporate campaign donor for the White House and Congress – and the candidates it backed won big, including Trump. But even before the latest push, US authorities believed that crypto mining was responsible for up to 2.3% of the nation's total electricity demand – roughly equivalent to the state of West Virginia. According to investment bank Goldman Sachs, the data-center-and-AI boom means that US power demand is 'likely to experience growth not seen in a generation'. And this demand for energy, largely fuelled by fracked gas, is set to soar under Trump, who embraced cryptocurrencies during the campaign, posting on his Truth Social platform last summer that Bitcoin mining would 'help us be ENERGY DOMINANT!!!' Trump is now betting big on AI, too, signing several executive orders since taking office to slash regulation. This includes one on his first day to roll back safety-testing rules for AI used by the government, followed by another order three days later revoking existing policies 'that act as barriers to American AI innovation'. Trump also announced private-sector investment of up to $500bn to fund infrastructure for artificial intelligence, aiming to outpace rivals. In recent weeks, Meta, Google, OpenAI and other tech companies have lobbied the Trump administration for more AI tax breaks and incentives, to block state laws and for access to federal data to develop the technology – as well as for easier access to energy sources for their computing demands. Tech companies 'are really emboldened by the Trump administration, and even issues like safety and responsible AI have disappeared completely from their concerns', Laura Caroli, a senior fellow at the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a non-profit thinktank, told the New York Times. Rachel Rose Jackson, director of climate research and policy at Corporate Accountability, said: 'This investigation is a harrowing illustration of just how out of touch with reality this government is with the facts of climate science – and highlights the treacherous relationship between big tech and fossil fuels. 'Not only are fossil-fuel corporations literally fueling the ramp-up of AI data centers, but big tech works with fossil-fuel corporations to use AI to discover and extract oil that should never see the light of day.' The gas industry – like the tech and crypto industries – is now set to reap the benefits of the data-center expansion. EQT Corporation, a leading fracked-gas producer and pipeline company and another major Trump donor, recently told investors that data centers are becoming the 'cornerstone of natural gas bull case' – in other words, the cornerstone of fossil gas expansion and shareholder profits. In February, EQT, which is worth $32bn, told investors that the company was ideally placed to take advantage of a forecasted 10-18bn-cubic-feet increase in gas demand from AI, crypto, EVs and other data centers by 2030. This is a huge amount of extra fossil gas, which even at EQT's lower forecast would generate as much carbon dioxide as 52 coal plants or 46.5m passenger cars over a year, according to the EPA calculator. Said EQT: 'We'll see those opportunities across the country – but we'll also see those largely in our backyard as well, especially given the proximity to the data center demand that's taking place.' Slide shown to EQT investors The Mountain Valley pipeline (MVP), a joint venture in which the gas giant is the controlling shareholder and operator, provides 'unique access' to the US south-east region, which is home to 'burgeoning data center demand', investors were also told. The MVP, which stretches 300 miles (482km) from north-western West Virginia to southern Virginia and was pushed through by the Biden administration in 2023 despite court orders and environmental regulators blocking construction, looks set to boost the data-center boom – and EQT profits. 'MVP capacity and long-term sales to the region's largest utilities mean EQT's natural gas can underpin power generation to support data-center build-out,' investors were told. A couple of days after the investor call, CEO Toby Rice told CNBC's influential investor-focused Mad Money TV show, 'we firmly believe that natural gas is going to take the lion's share of power demand to meet this growing AI demand need'. 'We need to unleash American energy,' added Rice, who has been lobbying politicians in Washington about the need to expand American fracked gas. 'Build, baby, build. Thank goodness this administration will let this happen. It could not have happened at a more critical time in the face of this AI boom that is taking place.' There are already almost 5,400 data centers in the US, 70% more than the next 10 largest markets combined, including China. They not only guzzle electricity, but also water. One large data center can consume as much as 5 million gallons of water per day, the equivalent to a town of up to 50,000 people. EQT made a $250,000 donation to the Republican Senate Leadership Fund just days after Biden announced he would pause liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits in January 2024. The Super Pac's one stated goal is to build a Republican majority that will 'defend America from Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats' destructive far-left agenda'. EQT boss Rice personally donated more than $100,000 to Republican Pacs and candidates in the last election cycle, according to OpenSecrets. Rice was also among a crew of 20 oil and gas executives at the infamous meeting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last April, in which he asked for donations of $1bn, which included fossil fuel giants ExxonMobil and Chevron and the influential lobby group the API. But the meeting also included smaller but increasingly powerful fracking companies drilling and/or exporting gas, which have revitalized the American fossil energy scene over the last two decades. It was organized by the fracking boss Harold Hamm, who for years has helped craft Republican energy policies. Hamm, who picked cotton barefoot as a child before making billions from fracking, runs Continental Resources, among the US's largest fracked-gas companies. Also in attendance was longtime oil industry ally Doug Burgum, then governor of North Dakota, who was appointed secretary of the interior in Trump's new administration. After the meeting, it was reported by the Washington Post that the oil and gas executives discussed how to try to meet Trump's request for $1bn to help fund his election campaign. In return, Trump promised to roll back environmental regulations, auction off more oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters, reverse pollution standards for new cars, and end drilling restrictions in the Alaskan Arctic, among other vows. The alleged 'quid pro quo' event was later investigated by a group of high-ranking Democratic lawmakers including Sheldon Whitehouse, then the Senate finance committee chair, and Jamie Raskin from the congressional committee on oversight and accountability. 'Such an obvious policies-for-money transaction reeks of cronyism and corruption,' they found. A second fossil-fuel fundraiser for Trump was organised the following month, in May 2024, by Warren of Energy Transfer, Vicki Hollub from Occidental Petroleum, and Hamm, who has been called Trump's energy whisperer. The event, which took place at a luxurious hotel in Houston where guests had to hand over their phones, was sponsored by Trump's Make America Great Again Pac. Hamm's company, Continental Resources, donated $1m to the Maga Super Pac in April last year, the month after Hamm donated $614,000 to the Trump 47 Committee. Many of those present at Trump's fundraising events last April and May already had long-term funding relationships with the Republicans. Continental Resources and Energy Transfer are in the top 20 funders of Maga, according to OpenSecrets. According to one analysis, big oil spent $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress – including pouring $96m into Trump's re-election campaign and affiliated political action committees. Doug Burgum and Harold Hamm were back at Mar-a-Lago to celebrate Trump's November election victory. Shortly after Trump declared an energy emergency on his first day back in the White House in January, Mike Sommers, head of the API, said: 'American energy was on the ballot and American energy won.' The API spent just over $13m in campaign donations and lobbying during the 2024 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets. Speaking at Davos just days after Trump's inauguration, EQT's Rice said: 'Our lives are going to get easier. Donald Trump is a very welcome change.' The following month, during an Energy Transfer investor call, co-chief executive officer Thomas E Long, said: 'My goodness, how wonderful is life after this election. When we have a president and an administration that love this country, that fully recognizes how blessed we are … and we have a businessman that built his career on trading, doing deals, negotiating, employing, creating numerous jobs throughout all the businesses that he's been associated with. 'What an incredible excitement we have around this administration and what it's going to do to mitigate just overwhelming regulation on all these assets, to streamline regulations.' So far, dozens of environmental regulations have been slashed, either by executive order or EPA rollbacks, including the end to Biden's 2024 pause on LNG exports and new rules for cleaner exhausts from tailpipes – industry requests shared by Hamm with the New York Times last May. This includes plans to roll back 31 key environmental rules – on everything from clean air to clean water and climate change – announced on a single day in March by Trump's EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, who has been accused of endangering the lives of millions of Americans. Trump's funders and backers are especially going to benefit from Trump's policies to restrict regulations in the AI sector as part of an attempt to outpace China to become the global leader. The US is currently home to just more than half the mega data centers in the world. And with Goldman Sachs suggesting $1tn will be spent on AI data centers in the next few years, a lot is up for grabs. Artificial intelligence and the data centers used to feed the computing power will require huge amounts of energy, with the US government projecting that data-center demand will triple the domestic electricity demand within the next three years. A recent paper by Harvard Law School notes that utilities are now prioritising supplying data centers at the expense of American consumers, who face price rises. Days after the election, it was reported that oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron were jumping into the race to power AI data centers. Yet the fracking industry, including Energy Transfer and EQT, appear to consider themselves best placed to benefit from Trump's pro-AI-and-data-center growth strategy. When Trump announced last November that Burgum would be the new secretary of the interior and chair of the newly formed National Energy Dominance Council, he said Burgum's work would be key to winning 'the battle for AI superiority, which is key to national security and our nation's prosperity'. At his confirmation hearing, Burgum repeated the same message, claiming that without more fossil fuels, 'we're going to lose the AI arms race to China'. 'In his first term, President Trump unleashed American energy while reducing carbon emissions to historic lows, proving that we can both restore American greatness and advance environmental stewardship. President Trump is committed to replacing unclean foreign energy with the liquid gold under our feet while ridding our environment of dangerous toxins,' said Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson. EQT, Energy Transfer, Continental Resources and the API were contacted for comment but did not respond. 'The most absurd part of this whole saga is that everyone who looks at it without a vested interest concludes that if we have to build data centers fast, it makes far, far more sense – economic and environmental – to use renewable energy,' said environmentalist Bill McKibben, founder of the non-profits and Third Act. 'But just as they shamelessly used the war in Ukraine, the gas industry is now using this moment to try and lock in their climate-killing business. And they've purchased enough friends in high places to make it a real possibility.' Andy Rowell is a UK-based investigative reporter and contributing editor to Oil Change International
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Greenpeace hit with $660 mn in damages in US pipeline suit
A jury in North Dakota on Wednesday ordered Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in a closely watched lawsuit brought by a US pipeline operator, raising serious free speech concerns. The verdict delivers a stunning legal blow to the environmental advocacy group, which Energy Transfer (ET) accused of orchestrating violence and defamation during the controversial construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. ET, which denies any intent to stifle speech, celebrated the verdict. The jury awarded more than $660 million in damages across three Greenpeace entities, citing charges including trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, and deprivation of property access. "We would like to thank the judge and the jury for the incredible amount of time and effort they dedicated to this trial," the company said. "While we are pleased that Greenpeace will be held accountable for their actions, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace." - Greenpeace vows appeal - Greenpeace vowed to appeal the verdict and continue its environmental advocacy. "The reality is you can't bankrupt a movement," Greenpeace USA interim executive director Sushma Raman told AFP. "This movement exists all around the world: individuals who want a cleaner, greener planet, more vibrant and inclusive democracy, protection of oceans, forests, and land. The people who power organizations like Greenpeace -- you can't bankrupt them, and the work will continue." Greenpeace International is counter-suing ET in the Netherlands, accusing the company of using nuisance lawsuits to suppress dissent. A hearing is set for July 2. At the heart of the North Dakota case was the Dakota Access Pipeline, where from 2016 to 2017, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history. The demonstrations saw hundreds arrested and injured, drawing the attention of the United Nations, which raised concerns over potential violations of Indigenous sovereignty. Despite the protests, the pipeline -- designed to transport fracked crude oil to refineries and on to global markets -- became operational in 2017. - 'Send a message' - ET, however, continued its legal pursuit of Greenpeace. Initially, ET sought $300 million in damages through a federal lawsuit, which was dismissed. It then shifted its legal strategy to North Dakota's state courts -- one of the minority of US states without protections against so-called "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or SLAPPs. Throughout the years-long legal fight, ET's billionaire CEO Kelcy Warren, a major donor to President Donald Trump, was open about his motivations. His "primary objective" in suing Greenpeace, he said in interviews, was not just financial compensation but to "send a message." Warren went so far as to say that activists "should be removed from the gene pool." The trial began in late February in Mandan, North Dakota, and after more than two days of deliberation, the jury delivered its verdict. - Free speech impact - Critics call the case a textbook SLAPP, designed to silence dissent and drain financial resources. "This kind of lawsuit, which can have the effect of crushing lawful protest and chilling free speech, should be subjected to the higher levels of scrutiny that come with anti-SLAPP legislation," said Michael Burger, a lawyer and scholar at Columbia University, told AFP. However, Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at the same university, did not go quite so far. "This verdict will chill protests that physically obstruct fossil fuel projects," he said, "but it shouldn't affect peaceful, non-obstructive demonstrations and certainly won't stop litigation against such projects." Greenpeace maintains that it played only a small and peaceful role in the movement, which was led by Native Americans. But in his closing arguments, ET's lead attorney Trey Cox accused Greenpeace of "exploiting" the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to advance its anti-fossil fuel agenda, according to the North Dakota Monitor. ia/aha
New York Times
19-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Jury Finds Greenpeace Liable for Hundreds of Millions in Damages
A North Dakota jury on Wednesday awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer, which had sued Greenpeace over its role in protests nearly a decade ago against its Dakota Access Pipeline. The verdict was a major blow to the storied environmental organization. Greenpeace had maintained that it played only a minor part in demonstrations led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It had portrayed the lawsuit as an attempt to stifle oil-industry critics, but a jury apparently disagreed. The nine-person jury in the Morton County courthouse in Mandan, N.D., about 45 minutes north of where the protests took place, returned the verdict after roughly two days of deliberating. Energy Transfer's co-founder and board chairman, Kelcy Warren, an ally and donor to President Trump, had been outspoken in his criticism of the protesters and had the last word during plaintiffs' closing arguments on Monday, when his lawyers played comments he made in a video deposition for the jurors. 'We've got to stand up for ourselves,' Mr. Warren said, arguing that protesters had created 'a total false narrative' about his company. 'It was time to fight back.' Energy Transfer is one of the largest pipeline companies in the country. The protests over its construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline drew national attention and thousands of people to monthslong encampments in 2016 and 2017. The demonstrators gathered on and around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, arguing that the pipeline cut through sacred land and could endanger the water supply. The Standing Rock tribe sued to stop the project, and members of other tribes, environmentalists and celebrities were among the many who flocked to the rural area, including two figures who are now members of Mr. Trump's cabinet: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. But the protests erupted into acts of vandalism and violence at some points, alienating people in the surrounding community in the Bismarck-Mandan area. Greenpeace has argued that the lawsuit was a threat to First Amendment rights, brought by a deep-pocketed plaintiff, that carries dangerous implications for organizations that speak out about a broad range of issues. Greenpeace has called the lawsuit a 'Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,' or SLAPP suit, the term for cases meant to hinder free speech by raising the risk of expensive legal battles. Many states have laws that make it difficult to pursue such cases, though not North Dakota. Trey Cox of the firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, the lead lawyer for Energy Transfer, laced into Greenpeace during closing arguments on Monday. The company accused Greenpeace of funding and supporting attacks and protests that delayed the pipeline's construction, raised costs and harmed Energy Transfer's reputation. Jurors, Mr. Cox said, would have the 'privilege' of telling the group that its actions were 'unacceptable to the American way.' He displayed costs incurred that tallied up to about $340 million, and asked for punitive damages on top of that. 'Greenpeace took a small, disorganized, local issue and exploited it to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline and promote its own selfish agenda,' he said. 'They thought they'd never get caught.' The 1,172-mile underground pipeline has been operating since 2017, but is awaiting final permits for a small section where it crosses federal territory underneath Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, near Standing Rock. The tribe is still trying to shut down the pipeline, in a different lawsuit. Lawyers for Greenpeace called the case against the group a 'ridiculous' attempt to pin blame on it for everything that happened during months of raucous protests, including federal-government delays in issuing permits. Greenpeace has said that a $300 million judgment could force it to shut down its operations in the United States. Three Greenpeace entities were named in the lawsuit: Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International. Greenpeace Inc. is the arm of the group that organizes public campaigns and protests. It is based in Washington, D.C., as is Greenpeace Fund, which raises money and gives out grants. The third entity named in the lawsuit, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, is the coordinating body for 25 independent Greenpeace groups around the world. It was principally the actions of Greenpeace Inc. that were at the heart of the trial, which began Feb. 24. They included training people in protest tactics, dispatching its 'Rolling Sunlight' solar-panel truck to provide power, and offering funds and other supplies. Greenpeace International maintained that its only involvement was signing a letter to banks expressing opposition to the pipeline, a document that was signed by hundreds and that had been drafted by a Dutch organization. Greenpeace Fund said it had no involvement. Mr. Cox alleged that all three entities were, in fact, working together as 'one enterprise.' Greenpeace International has also countersued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking a new European Union directive against SLAPP suits, as well as Dutch law. Everett Jack Jr., of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, was the lead lawyer for the Greenpeace Inc., and a study in contrasts with Mr. Cox. Both men wore dark suits and red ties for their closing arguments. But their demeanors were polar opposites. Mr. Cox was energetic, indignant, even wheeling out a cart stacked with boxes of evidence during his rebuttal to argue that he had proved his case. Mr. Jack was calm and measured, recounting the chronology of how the protests developed to make the case that they had swelled well before Greenpeace got involved. Given the months of disruptions caused locally by the protests, the jury pool in the area was widely expected to favor Energy Transfer. Among the observers in the courtroom were a group of lawyers calling themselves the Trial Monitoring Committee, who criticized the court for denying a Greenpeace petition to move the trial to the bigger city of Fargo, which was not as affected by the protests. The group included Martin Garbus, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, and Steven Donziger, who is well-known for his yearslong legal battle with Chevron over pollution in Ecuador. The committee took issue with the number of jurors with ties to the oil industry or who expressed negative views of protests during jury selection. But Suja A. Thomas, an expert on juries and law professor at the University of Illinois, said the precedent in North Dakota courts was not to use 'blanket disqualifications of jurors just because they might have some kind of interest,' whether it's financial or based on experience or opinion. Rather, the judge has to determine whether each individual juror can be impartial. 'There can be interest; they have to determine whether the interest is significant enough such that the person cannot be fair,' Ms. Thomas said. Natali Segovia is the executive director of Water Protector Legal Collective, an Indigenous- led legal and advocacy nonprofit that grew out of the Standing Rock protests. Ms. Segovia, who is also a member of the trial monitoring committee, said her organization was involved with about 800 criminal cases that resulted from the protests. The vast majority have been dismissed, she said. What had gotten lost during the Greenpeace trial, she said, was the concern about water that had spurred so much protest. She saw a larger dynamic at play. 'At its core, it's a proxy war against Indigenous sovereignty using an international environmental organization,' she said.
Yahoo
23-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US pipeline case heads to court in high-stakes free speech fight
Nearly a decade after activists led one of the largest anti-pipeline protests in US history, the fight shifts to court as Energy Transfer sues Greenpeace for $300 million in a case with far-reaching free speech implications. At the heart of the lawsuit is the Dakota Access Pipeline, which transports fracked crude oil from North Dakota to refineries and on to markets worldwide. Contentious from its inception, the project faced fierce opposition from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which called it the "Black Snake" and warned of dire threats to ancestral lands. Beginning in 2016, protests and legal challenges sought to halt construction. By 2017, hundreds had been arrested and injured, prompting United Nations concerns over Indigenous sovereignty violations. Though the oil has flowed for years, pipeline operator Energy Transfer continues to pursue Greenpeace, accusing the group of leading the protests, conspiring to commit crimes, inciting violence, and defaming the company. Critics call the lawsuit a clear example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to silence dissent and drain resources. "Big Oil is trying to send a message to us, and they're trying to silence Greenpeace as well as the wider movement," Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace told AFP. "But let us be clear, the limited interventions that Greenpeace entities took related to Standing Rock were peaceful, lawful, and in line with our values of non-violence and our work for a green and peaceful future." - A legal war to 'send a message' - Energy Transfer denies that it is aiming to stifle free speech. "Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is about them not following the law," the company said in a statement to AFP. "We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that. Beyond that we will let our case speak for itself." In 2017, Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in federal court, invoking the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) -- a law typically used to prosecute organized crime. CEO Kelcy Warren stated in interviews that his "primary objective" was not financial compensation but to "send a message" -- going so far as to suggest that activists "should be removed from the gene pool." That case was tossed out by a federal court, but Energy Transfer quickly refiled at the state level in North Dakota -- one of the minority of US states without anti-SLAPP protections. Waniya Locke, a member of Standing Rock Grassroots, pushed back at the idea Greenpeace led the movement. "I want it to be very clear that there were no NGOs that started or organized our resistance. And it was matriarch-led. It was led by women who stood strong, who stood on the riverbanks unarmed." - Greenpeace fights back in Europe - Greenpeace is fighting back, becoming this month the first group to test the European Union's anti-SLAPP directive by suing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands. "We are asking the district court of Amsterdam to declare that ET acted wrongfully by engaging in an abusive process," Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper told AFP. The case seeks damages with interest and demands that Energy Transfer publish the court's findings on its website. Similar lawsuits from fossil fuel companies, including Shell and Total, have targeted Greenpeace in recent years. "The good news is that when we fight back, we win," said Casper, citing the dismissal of TotalEnergies v Greenpeace France last year. More than 400 organizations, along with public figures such as Billie Eilish, Jane Fonda, and Susan Sarandon, have signed an open letter supporting Greenpeace. "If Energy Transfer is successful in imposing a large monetary penalty on Greenpeace, that would encourage other companies to take similar actions and could significantly chill protests over a variety of issues -- not just climate change," Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia University told AFP. ia/bgs
