from the greenbacks-are-good-for-the-environment dept.
The company that built the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other groups on Tuesday, alleging that they disseminated false and misleading information about the project and interfered with its construction.
In its lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in North Dakota, Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners requests damages that could approach $1 billion.
The company alleges that the groups' actions interfered with its business, facilitated crimes and acts of terrorism, incited violence, targeted financial institutions that backed the project and violated racketeering and defamation laws. The company seeks a trial and monetary damages, noting that disruptions to construction alone cost it at least $300 million and requesting triple damages.
The group of defendants "is comprised of rogue environmental groups and militant individuals who employ a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation for purposes of increasing donations and advancing their political or business agendas," the company said in a statement.
Greenpeace attorney Tom Wetterer said the lawsuit is "meritless" and part of "a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies."
The lawsuit is "not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation," Wetterer said.
Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
"A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday (Nov 16, 2017) from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota, the pipeline's operator, TransCanada, said.
Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning, and officials are investigating the cause of the leak, which occurred about three miles southeast of the town of Amherst, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, Walsh said. The leak comes just days before Nebraska officials announce a decision on whether the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, a sister project, can move forward."
Keystone pipeline - major leak/spill
Elsewhere there are notes of smaller spills in the same pipeline--this AC submitter is wondering about the long term use of a pipeline that is leaking when it's nearly brand new. Doesn't sound good for the long term.
PBS has a followup article from today (Saturday), 'We need to know' more about Keystone oil pipeline leak, tribal chairman says
The leak comes as the debate over the proposed path of the Keystone XL pipeline rages on. Nebraska's Public Service Commission is scheduled to announce its decision Monday on whether to permit TransCanada to build Keystone XL along its proposed route in the state, the Omaha World-Herald reported. A spokeswoman for the commission told the AP that the board's members will only use information provided during public hearings and official public comments in order to make their decision.
US District Court: Approval of Dakota Access Pipeline Violated the Law
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Company Behind Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Sues Greenpeace
(Score: 4, Touché) by KiloByte on Friday August 25 2017, @11:42AM (1 child)
No chances this argument passes, otherwise you'd have a precedent to make the Democratic and Republican parties illegal.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday August 25 2017, @12:37PM
You mean... there's a chance, even if a remote one, to create a precedent?
(Score: 1) by Revek on Friday August 25 2017, @12:41PM (1 child)
Greenpeace says truth. What I say is they both have different opinions. I'm pretty sure you can't win when its an opinion. Its to bad both sides can't be locked into a cage match with two rusty butter knifes. Two douches enter and one douche leaves.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @12:51PM
I say call Saint Elon to play Solomon. He'll suggest using a Boring Machine to put the pipeline completely under the Indian land and the big river...where it should have been in the first place.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Friday August 25 2017, @02:54PM (11 children)
Undeniably true; that was the purpose of their actions.
Also appears to accurately describe actions accompanying the protests.
Defamation, certainly. Racketeering, however, is a neat and novel way to cast it.
As is their legal right.
Not unlikely in the least.
Absolutely, undeniably correct. Even if we agree that "pipeline is bad, yo" and "save the trees/water/air" and all that, then in that case we would be coincidentally agreeing with a group of rogues, criminals, and eco-terrorists who engage in a pattern of criminal conspiracy that goes back for decades, who believe that "the ends justify the means." Even if they think nice things about the environment from time to time, that doesn't mean that the criminal and even violent things they do are *also* nice thoughts. Some things can be good while other, different things can be bad at the same time.
Oh pot, call ye not the kettle black.
Arrant nonsense. The lawsuit will cast a spotlight on every detail of the "speech" that Wetterer is complaining about, and expose it for whatever it may be, good or bad. The lawsuit assists and calls attention to that speech, and the criminal acts surrounding it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @03:12PM
You're a fool, guess you enjoy corporate fascism.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Tara Li on Friday August 25 2017, @03:37PM (5 children)
Yep - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and other organizations have made it clear for decades that the lawsuits they file are more about costing the companies money than actual justice. Turn-about is fair play.
Though really, we do need to figure out some why to prevent the courts being used as weapons. Maybe some judges who take their oaths of office seriously, perhaps?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @05:35PM (4 children)
Actual justice would be prison terms for CEOs, dismantling the systems that cause massive environmental damage. This new trend of equalizing everything is a pretty sneaky form of propaganda. Erode people's ethics, make everything seem relative, then its all about who can bribe the most.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday August 25 2017, @08:01PM (3 children)
In the developed world, that was done long ago. Didn't need to jail a bunch of CEOs for non-crimes either.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @09:46PM (2 children)
Corporate stooge you're the one, you make astroturfing look like so much fun!
The saddest part is I don't think you are a stooge. It would truly be a preferable scenario, but I think you may actually just enjoy sucking corporate cock. For free.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday August 25 2017, @10:35PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @11:28PM
Yeah, thanks to the hard work of a bunch of "tree hugging hippies" which you and your stooge friends would gladly have left in a ditch to die. Protections that were hard won and are now being rolled back as quickly as your favorite political stooge can push them through. Pffft, I bet you would give all the credit to companies for cleaning up instead of the heroes that fought them tooth and nail to FORCE them to clean up.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @05:38PM
'Even if we agree that "pipeline is bad, yo" and "save the trees/water/air" and all that, then in that case we would be coincidentally agreeing with a group of rogues, criminals, and eco-terrorists who engage in a pattern of criminal conspiracy that goes back for decades, who believe that "the ends justify the means."'
There should be no "if we agree" in there. But that aside, how about addressing the criminal conspiracy to suppress evidence and knowingly pollute the environment for the sake of profit. Does profit justify the means?
(Score: 1, Troll) by melikamp on Friday August 25 2017, @06:00PM
HAHAHAHAHA wow you really got them!
The joke is on you, though, buddie. Every time you open your mouth to defend a fossil fuel dinosaur such as ETP, their execs crouch, take a big dump in your mouth, and then highfive each other. Or perhaps, if you look at what they actually do to the environment both in terms of carbon pollution and the toxin release, you may wish it was actual literal shit you were swallowing and breathing, as it would probably be safer overall.
As AC pointed out already, orgs such as Greenpeace defend the planet and the environment, YOUR planet and YOUR environment, whereas you seem to be keen on defending ETP's right to profit. If you are being sincere, you must be dumber than Republican astroturf chatbots.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday August 25 2017, @06:04PM
"...group of rogues, criminals, and eco-terrorists who engage in a pattern of criminal conspiracy that goes back for decades, who believe that "the ends justify the means." Even if they think nice things about the environment from time to time, that doesn't mean that the criminal and even violent things they do are *also* nice thoughts. Some things can be good while other, different things can be bad at the same time."
The same could very well be said about Energy Transfer Partners and the whole petrol energy gang of big oil and energy.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday August 25 2017, @09:54PM
Civil Rico is a thing [supremelaw.org]. (As is criminal Rico - but the latter must be a charge leveled by the Government)/
So its not THAT novel of an approach, and it (IMHO) brings a much stronger ability to win a judgement in front of a jury.
Especially now in these days, since its become quite apparent that there are professional paid protesters that travel from event to event, where ever they are paid to go, and to a far lesser extent, where ever they feel motivated to go. People see these same protesters show up in town, inflict a lot of damage and escape any consequences, then scurry off to the next city and the next protest, rinse, repeat for years.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 26 2017, @12:41AM (2 children)
The protestors. Buncha kooks, really, but I at least partially agreed with them. We only have one earth, maybe we should work harder to ensure it stays clean? Kinda beside the point though.
The corporates knew early on that a lot of people were going to protest, in many different ways. They knew that they would be tied up in court, and they knew the potential for protestors physically disrupting their operations. And, they chose to go forward with their plans.
I deem any money lost by the corporations as part of "the cost of doing business". A billion dollars? How much of that is loss, and how much is just hoped for punitive awards? Not that I care a whole lot. If the corporates actually "lost" a billion dollars in all of the confrontations, they can just eat that cost.
I guess my bottom line on this is, "Leave the kooks alone because they help to keep corps somewhat honest." The alternative is a one sided report from the corps, telling us how things are going to be.
Don’t confuse the news with the truth.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:08PM (1 child)
> I guess my bottom line on this is, "Leave the kooks alone because they help to keep corps somewhat honest." The alternative is a one sided report from the corps, telling us how things are going to be.
No, the ones who have committed acts of violence and vandalism are criminals. The alternative is law and order.
You're arguing that the ends justify the means. You're arguing in favor of a violent war between corporations and vigilantes. That's not what we do in civilized society.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 26 2017, @02:32PM
Actually, the only violence cited in that whole thing, was committed by corporations.
Don’t confuse the news with the truth.