Subscribe or else!
Don’t Let Greenpeace Ruin Your Pipeline–Follow Big Oil's Activist Removal Plan!
Are protestors interfering with your multibillion-dollar oil pipeline? Of course they are!
Ministry-approved petro-giant Energy Transfer was barely able to break ground over ancestral Sioux lands when the Dakota Access Pipeline became infested with Greenpeace agitators. Big Brother can relate to this frustration. You follow all the regime-approved channels and still turn around to find your job site covered in unwanted visitors. But now fuel flows freely thanks to Big Oil’s proven strategy. And it can good-work for you too!
Here’s the plan:
- CHOOSE YOUR TARGET - Even a resounding win over a sympathetic native tribe can be a bad look. Instead, set your sights on the well-known activist group that is only tangentially involved in the protest and you can’t go wrong!
- HOLD THE LINE - Energy Transfer fought off an attempt by Greenpeace to change the trial venue, ensuring a jury that was as sympathetic as possible to big oil.
- DRAG OUT THE PROCESS- Eight years of legal fees are a drop in the bucket for big corporations. Leverage that strength until your opponent runs out of money.
- STAY THE COURSE - The lawsuit was originally dismissed at the federal level, but later pursued in North Dakota state court, where protections against SLAPP cases, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are weak.
- WIN BIG AND SET A CHILLING PRECEDENT - The awarded $667M, twice the initial ask, is a potentially bankrupting blow to Greenpeace. Legal experts predict opposition groups may now be less likely to hinder progress in the future.
Who knew that silencing critics could be so lucrative? Big Brother did — and now, so do you!
SYNTAX ERROR
PRINTING JUST THE FACTS
- A North Dakota jury ordered nonprofit Greenpeace to pay over $660M in damages to oil company Energy Transfer, holding it liable for defamation, trespassing, nuisance, and conspiracy in connection to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline from 2016-2017.
- Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating unlawful protests, funding demonstrators, and spreading misinformation to disrupt pipeline construction. Greenpeace denied wrongdoing, calling the case an attack on free speech and a threat to environmental activism.
- The lawsuit was originally dismissed at the federal level but later pursued in North Dakota state court, where protections against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases are weak. Legal experts fear the ruling could set a precedent for silencing activists.
- The nine-person jury reportedly included members with ties to the fossil fuel industry, raising concerns over bias. Greenpeace unsuccessfully sought to change the trial’s venue, arguing that the political and economic climate in North Dakota made a fair trial unlikely.
- The Dakota Access Pipeline, completed in 2017, transports around 5% of the US’s daily oil production. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led protests, continues legal efforts to shut it down over concerns about water contamination and environmental harm.
- Greenpeace International is countersuing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, arguing that the company’s lawsuit is an attempt to stifle dissent. Environmental groups warn the ruling could embolden fossil fuel companies to weaponize courts against climate activism worldwide.
Sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, France24, and Euro News.
REPORT ERROR Y/N?