BACKGROUNDER
Former tribal chair says he only met with company to discuss safety
Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II stands before protesters against the Dakota Access pipeline outside U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. after a hearing on the tribe's lawsuit contesting the project's approval.
MAR 21, 2025
Mary Steurer
South Dakota Searchlight
Energy Transfer Executive Chairman Kelcy Warren claimed in court testimony he traveled to North Dakota in December 2016 to discuss a settlement with then-tribal chair David Archambault II to end protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
“I said, ‘David, I’m here to make a deal with you,’” Warren said in a video deposition shown to jurors last week during a trial involving Energy Transfer and Greenpeace. “‘What do you want? Money? Land?’”
Warren, who was CEO of Energy Transfer at the time, said he was willing to give the tribe a ranch that the company had purchased near part of the pipeline construction site in North Dakota. Energy Transfer just months prior had bought Cannonball Ranch, which is north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in an area that became the center of the anti-pipeline demonstrations.
Warren said he also offered to build a new school on the reservation.
Archambault in a Monday statement to the North Dakota Monitor said his memory of his meeting with Warren is very different. Archambault did not appear as a witness during the trial.
“From my perspective, the purpose of the meeting was not to negotiate a settlement,” Archambault wrote.
Archambault said he met with Warren because he was concerned about growing violence at the protests.
“Given the growing danger, I felt it was necessary to have a direct conversation to discuss de-escalation,” he wrote.
Archambault said that oil and gas magnate Harold Hamm and then-Quapaw Nation chair John Berrey helped arrange his meeting with Warren.
He said he told Warren at the meeting that he was not there to end the protests.
“He asked what it would take to stop the movement, and I explained that it was no longer in my control,” Archambault said. “The fight against the pipeline had become much bigger than Standing Rock; it was about Indigenous rights and the long history of injustice faced by our people.”
According to Archambault, Warren told him if he had been aware of the history of how infrastructure projects have affected the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe then “we might not be in this situation.”
Archambault said in the statement that more than a year before his meeting with Warren, he met with another Energy Transfer executive, Joey Mahmoud, to relay his concerns about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Mahmoud was in charge of the project for Energy Transfer.
“At that time, I made it clear that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe would resist the pipeline due to the historical and ongoing harm caused by infrastructure projects on Indigenous lands,” Archambault wrote.
Scroll to Continue
Archambault said Mahmoud told him that Energy Transfer is used to dealing with protests.
“I let him know I thought this was going to be different,” Archambault wrote.
Warren in his video deposition speculated that Archambault rejected his offer to settle because he had already made a separate deal with a third party. Warren said he suspects someone had paid money to the tribe and that Earthjustice, an environmental law group, was “the carrier of that money.”
“It was very clear to me he had struck a deal with the devil,” Warren said of Archambault.
Warren acknowledged that he did not have concrete evidence that the deal took place.
“Warren has no evidence of it because it never happened,” Jan Hasselman, a senior attorney for Earthjustice who previously represented the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a statement to the Monitor.
Archambault said that his meeting with Warren “ended with an understanding that neither side would change course.”
“Energy Transfer would attempt to push the pipeline through, and we would continue to resist,” he wrote.
Warren’s deposition came as part of Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace over its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe started the protests to oppose the project, which it states is a pollution threat to its water and a violation of Native sovereignty. Greenpeace was one of many organizations present at the demonstrations.
In his testimony, Warren said that he was not privy to the day-to-day operations of Energy Transfer at the time of the protests. He said that he had no personal knowledge of Greenpeace’s involvement in the demonstrations, and that his legal staff were heading up the lawsuit against the environmental group.
Warren said that it was his understanding that the purpose of the lawsuit was to push back against an organized effort to harm the company, which he said included “defamation” and “paid protesters.”
“I did feel strongly that we’ve got to stand up for ourselves,” Warren said.
Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace coordinated illegal attacks against the pipeline that cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. Greenpeace denies the claims.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2019, went to trial in Mandan in late February. The parties presented their closing arguments on Monday, though the jury has yet to render a verdict.
BY SOUTH DAKOTA SEARCHLIGHT
South Dakota Searchlight provides free news and commentary on critical issues facing the state. We seek to serve the public interest with accuracy, fairness, insight and civility.
Former Greenpeace leader disputes allegations by Dakota Access Pipeline developer
Energy Transfer has taken Greenpeace to trial over claims that the environmental group incited illegal acts by protesters in North Dakota that cost the company millions of dollars in alleged property damages and lost revenue
MAR 21, 2025
Mary Steurer
South Dakota Searchlight
Energy Transfer Executive Chairman Kelcy Warren claimed in court testimony he traveled to North Dakota in December 2016 to discuss a settlement with then-tribal chair David Archambault II to end protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
“I said, ‘David, I’m here to make a deal with you,’” Warren said in a video deposition shown to jurors last week during a trial involving Energy Transfer and Greenpeace. “‘What do you want? Money? Land?’”
Warren, who was CEO of Energy Transfer at the time, said he was willing to give the tribe a ranch that the company had purchased near part of the pipeline construction site in North Dakota. Energy Transfer just months prior had bought Cannonball Ranch, which is north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in an area that became the center of the anti-pipeline demonstrations.
Warren said he also offered to build a new school on the reservation.
Archambault in a Monday statement to the North Dakota Monitor said his memory of his meeting with Warren is very different. Archambault did not appear as a witness during the trial.
“From my perspective, the purpose of the meeting was not to negotiate a settlement,” Archambault wrote.
Archambault said he met with Warren because he was concerned about growing violence at the protests.
“Given the growing danger, I felt it was necessary to have a direct conversation to discuss de-escalation,” he wrote.
Archambault said that oil and gas magnate Harold Hamm and then-Quapaw Nation chair John Berrey helped arrange his meeting with Warren.
He said he told Warren at the meeting that he was not there to end the protests.
“He asked what it would take to stop the movement, and I explained that it was no longer in my control,” Archambault said. “The fight against the pipeline had become much bigger than Standing Rock; it was about Indigenous rights and the long history of injustice faced by our people.”
According to Archambault, Warren told him if he had been aware of the history of how infrastructure projects have affected the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe then “we might not be in this situation.”
Archambault said in the statement that more than a year before his meeting with Warren, he met with another Energy Transfer executive, Joey Mahmoud, to relay his concerns about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Mahmoud was in charge of the project for Energy Transfer.
“At that time, I made it clear that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe would resist the pipeline due to the historical and ongoing harm caused by infrastructure projects on Indigenous lands,” Archambault wrote.
Scroll to Continue
Archambault said Mahmoud told him that Energy Transfer is used to dealing with protests.
“I let him know I thought this was going to be different,” Archambault wrote.
Warren in his video deposition speculated that Archambault rejected his offer to settle because he had already made a separate deal with a third party. Warren said he suspects someone had paid money to the tribe and that Earthjustice, an environmental law group, was “the carrier of that money.”
“It was very clear to me he had struck a deal with the devil,” Warren said of Archambault.
Warren acknowledged that he did not have concrete evidence that the deal took place.
“Warren has no evidence of it because it never happened,” Jan Hasselman, a senior attorney for Earthjustice who previously represented the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a statement to the Monitor.
Archambault said that his meeting with Warren “ended with an understanding that neither side would change course.”
“Energy Transfer would attempt to push the pipeline through, and we would continue to resist,” he wrote.
Warren’s deposition came as part of Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace over its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe started the protests to oppose the project, which it states is a pollution threat to its water and a violation of Native sovereignty. Greenpeace was one of many organizations present at the demonstrations.
In his testimony, Warren said that he was not privy to the day-to-day operations of Energy Transfer at the time of the protests. He said that he had no personal knowledge of Greenpeace’s involvement in the demonstrations, and that his legal staff were heading up the lawsuit against the environmental group.
Warren said that it was his understanding that the purpose of the lawsuit was to push back against an organized effort to harm the company, which he said included “defamation” and “paid protesters.”
“I did feel strongly that we’ve got to stand up for ourselves,” Warren said.
Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace coordinated illegal attacks against the pipeline that cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. Greenpeace denies the claims.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2019, went to trial in Mandan in late February. The parties presented their closing arguments on Monday, though the jury has yet to render a verdict.
BY SOUTH DAKOTA SEARCHLIGHT
South Dakota Searchlight provides free news and commentary on critical issues facing the state. We seek to serve the public interest with accuracy, fairness, insight and civility.
Former Greenpeace leader disputes allegations by Dakota Access Pipeline developer
Energy Transfer has taken Greenpeace to trial over claims that the environmental group incited illegal acts by protesters in North Dakota that cost the company millions of dollars in alleged property damages and lost revenue
Greenpeace Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha is pictured outside the Morton County Courthouse on March 3, 2025.
(Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
Mary Steurer
North Dakota Mirror
Mary Steurer
North Dakota Mirror
MAR 17, 2025
A former executive director of Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate on Wednesday refuted accusations from the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline that the environmental group was a major force driving protests against the pipeline in 2016 and 2017.
Energy Transfer has taken Greenpeace to trial over claims that the environmental group incited illegal acts by protesters in North Dakota that cost the company millions of dollars in alleged property damages and lost revenue. It also claims Greenpeace conspired to defame Energy Transfer in order to harm its relationship with banks financing the construction loan for the pipeline.
Annie Leonard, who led Greenpeace USA from 2014 to 2023, told jurors that Greenpeace only got involved in the protests because the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe asked. Tribal citizens started the demonstrations against the pipeline out of concerns that it poses a pollution threat to the tribe’s drinking water. The tribe also sees the pipeline as an infringement on tribal sovereignty because it crosses unceded Sioux Nation land.
Leonard said that at some point during the protests, a Navajo activist named Tom Goldtooth — a longtime friend of hers — asked if there was anything Greenpeace could do to help the cause. Leonard said that while Goldtooth was not a spokesperson for the protests, he helped relay messages from Standing Rock leaders.
She said Goldtooth shared with her that the demonstration camps had nowhere for people to charge their phones. This made it difficult for organizers to communicate with one another and spread word about the protests, she said. According to Leonard, Goldtooth also said that Standing Rock wanted help keeping the protests peaceful.
In response, Greenpeace sent a truck equipped with solar panels to the camps, Leonard said. It also set aside money to pay for Native organizers to go to the camps and teach people nonviolent protest strategies, including deescalation tactics, she said.
Records shown in court on Wednesday indicated Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate approved a grant for roughly $20,000 to send trainers to North Dakota. Leonard privately fundraised another $90,000 in donations for the same purpose, the documents showed.
Leonard said one reason she raised the money privately was because Greenpeace didn’t have any enough funds to award another grant. She also said she wanted to help be a “matchmaker” to directly connect donors with Native organizations working at Standing Rock.
Greenpeace never tried to make its involvement in the demonstrations secret, though it also didn’t want to bring too much attention to itself, Leonard said. She said that since Greenpeace is a household name, it has the tendency to overshadow local organizers when it gets involved in a cause.
“We didn’t want to make the story be about us,” she said.
Trey Cox, an attorney representing Energy Transfer, asked whether her testimony conflicted with an internal email Leonard sent during the protests describing Greenpeace’s support for Standing Rock as “massive.”
Leonard on Wednesday said she had exaggerated. She said she had written the email out of “exuberance” for the amount of money and resources Greenpeace was able to contribute to the cause.
She said that even though she went out of her way to help support Standing Rock activists, she spent most of her time focused on other tasks.
“It was not major compared to the universe of things I was doing for Greenpeace,” Leonard said. She said she never went to the protests in person.
Brent Maness, a former Greenpeace employee, also testified about Greenpeace’s role in the protests on Wednesday. Maness never went to the protests, but was in charge of some employees Greenpeace sent to the camps.
During his questioning of Maness, Cox displayed an agenda for one Greenpeace nonviolent direct action training that occurred in 2015. The agenda indicates that the training discussed the use of lockboxes and other technical blockades.
Energy Transfer has repeatedly brought up lockboxes and blockades as evidence Greenpeace wanted protesters to obstruct work on the pipeline. Pipeline opponents used the lockboxes, also known as “sleeping dragons,” to attach themselves to construction equipment.
One bullet point on the agenda also referenced “shaming police.”
Maness said he didn’t remember why that was listed on the program. He said that the trainings had a lot more “content and context” that is not in the agenda.
“I can tell you unequivocally Greenpeace doesn’t teach people to shame police,” he said.
Maness also testified Wednesday that while Greenpeace provided funding to send trainers there, the organization did not control the trainers’ curriculum.
Greenpeace witnesses have acknowledged they brought lockboxes to the protests but maintain that the trainers didn’t encourage or instruct protesters to use them.
Leonard said that it was her understanding that Greenpeace provided the lockboxes because organizers on the ground at the protests had asked for the devices.
Cox brought up a text message exchange between Leonard and Goldtooth in 2016 in which he sent a photo of a Dakota Access Pipeline protester using a lockbox on construction equipment. Leonard replied that the action “ups the ante.”
Cox asked what she meant by this.
Leonard said that lockboxes can be tools for nonviolent civil disobedience, which she views as a “tried and true” component of American protest movements.
“When Rosa Parks refused to leave that seat, that upped the ante,” she said.
Cox said Parks wasn’t a fair comparison because she wasn’t trespassing on private land.
“She had permission to be on that bus, did she not?” he asked Leonard.
“She didn’t have permission to be on that seat,” Leonard replied.
Cox countered that Parks’ action did not disrupt business for Montgomery’s public transit in the same way that the Dakota Access Pipeline protests disrupted construction.
Leonard pointed out that Parks’ act of civil disobedience, and her subsequent arrest, was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott — which did disrupt profits for the bus system. That boycott led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared segregation on public buses unconstitutional.
Greenpeace attorneys said they anticipate wrapping up their case on Friday.
BY NORTH DAKOTA MIRROR
North Dakota Monitor is an independent source for watchdog reporting on state government, public policy and other critical issues affecting all of us in the Peace Garden State.
A former executive director of Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate on Wednesday refuted accusations from the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline that the environmental group was a major force driving protests against the pipeline in 2016 and 2017.
Energy Transfer has taken Greenpeace to trial over claims that the environmental group incited illegal acts by protesters in North Dakota that cost the company millions of dollars in alleged property damages and lost revenue. It also claims Greenpeace conspired to defame Energy Transfer in order to harm its relationship with banks financing the construction loan for the pipeline.
Annie Leonard, who led Greenpeace USA from 2014 to 2023, told jurors that Greenpeace only got involved in the protests because the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe asked. Tribal citizens started the demonstrations against the pipeline out of concerns that it poses a pollution threat to the tribe’s drinking water. The tribe also sees the pipeline as an infringement on tribal sovereignty because it crosses unceded Sioux Nation land.
Leonard said that at some point during the protests, a Navajo activist named Tom Goldtooth — a longtime friend of hers — asked if there was anything Greenpeace could do to help the cause. Leonard said that while Goldtooth was not a spokesperson for the protests, he helped relay messages from Standing Rock leaders.
She said Goldtooth shared with her that the demonstration camps had nowhere for people to charge their phones. This made it difficult for organizers to communicate with one another and spread word about the protests, she said. According to Leonard, Goldtooth also said that Standing Rock wanted help keeping the protests peaceful.
In response, Greenpeace sent a truck equipped with solar panels to the camps, Leonard said. It also set aside money to pay for Native organizers to go to the camps and teach people nonviolent protest strategies, including deescalation tactics, she said.
Records shown in court on Wednesday indicated Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate approved a grant for roughly $20,000 to send trainers to North Dakota. Leonard privately fundraised another $90,000 in donations for the same purpose, the documents showed.
Leonard said one reason she raised the money privately was because Greenpeace didn’t have any enough funds to award another grant. She also said she wanted to help be a “matchmaker” to directly connect donors with Native organizations working at Standing Rock.
Greenpeace never tried to make its involvement in the demonstrations secret, though it also didn’t want to bring too much attention to itself, Leonard said. She said that since Greenpeace is a household name, it has the tendency to overshadow local organizers when it gets involved in a cause.
“We didn’t want to make the story be about us,” she said.
Trey Cox, an attorney representing Energy Transfer, asked whether her testimony conflicted with an internal email Leonard sent during the protests describing Greenpeace’s support for Standing Rock as “massive.”
Leonard on Wednesday said she had exaggerated. She said she had written the email out of “exuberance” for the amount of money and resources Greenpeace was able to contribute to the cause.
She said that even though she went out of her way to help support Standing Rock activists, she spent most of her time focused on other tasks.
“It was not major compared to the universe of things I was doing for Greenpeace,” Leonard said. She said she never went to the protests in person.
Brent Maness, a former Greenpeace employee, also testified about Greenpeace’s role in the protests on Wednesday. Maness never went to the protests, but was in charge of some employees Greenpeace sent to the camps.
During his questioning of Maness, Cox displayed an agenda for one Greenpeace nonviolent direct action training that occurred in 2015. The agenda indicates that the training discussed the use of lockboxes and other technical blockades.
Energy Transfer has repeatedly brought up lockboxes and blockades as evidence Greenpeace wanted protesters to obstruct work on the pipeline. Pipeline opponents used the lockboxes, also known as “sleeping dragons,” to attach themselves to construction equipment.
One bullet point on the agenda also referenced “shaming police.”
Maness said he didn’t remember why that was listed on the program. He said that the trainings had a lot more “content and context” that is not in the agenda.
“I can tell you unequivocally Greenpeace doesn’t teach people to shame police,” he said.
Maness also testified Wednesday that while Greenpeace provided funding to send trainers there, the organization did not control the trainers’ curriculum.
Greenpeace witnesses have acknowledged they brought lockboxes to the protests but maintain that the trainers didn’t encourage or instruct protesters to use them.
Leonard said that it was her understanding that Greenpeace provided the lockboxes because organizers on the ground at the protests had asked for the devices.
Cox brought up a text message exchange between Leonard and Goldtooth in 2016 in which he sent a photo of a Dakota Access Pipeline protester using a lockbox on construction equipment. Leonard replied that the action “ups the ante.”
Cox asked what she meant by this.
Leonard said that lockboxes can be tools for nonviolent civil disobedience, which she views as a “tried and true” component of American protest movements.
“When Rosa Parks refused to leave that seat, that upped the ante,” she said.
Cox said Parks wasn’t a fair comparison because she wasn’t trespassing on private land.
“She had permission to be on that bus, did she not?” he asked Leonard.
“She didn’t have permission to be on that seat,” Leonard replied.
Cox countered that Parks’ action did not disrupt business for Montgomery’s public transit in the same way that the Dakota Access Pipeline protests disrupted construction.
Leonard pointed out that Parks’ act of civil disobedience, and her subsequent arrest, was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott — which did disrupt profits for the bus system. That boycott led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared segregation on public buses unconstitutional.
Greenpeace attorneys said they anticipate wrapping up their case on Friday.
BY NORTH DAKOTA MIRROR
North Dakota Monitor is an independent source for watchdog reporting on state government, public policy and other critical issues affecting all of us in the Peace Garden State.
No comments:
Post a Comment