• 5 minutes Closing the circle around Saudi Arabia: Where did Khashoggi disappear?
  • 10 minutes Iranian Sanctions - What Are The Facts?
  • 15 minutes U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects
  • 6 hours WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 2 hours Censorship has a price: Google’s CEO Defends Potential Return to China
  • 4 hours Gold price on a rise...
  • 4 hours Saudis Threaten Retaliation If Sanctions are Imposed
  • 3 hours Two Koreas: U.N. Command Wrap Up First Talks On Disarming Border
  • 2 hours $70 More Likely Than $100 - YeeeeeeHaaaaa
  • 1 hour Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
  • 47 mins Porsche Says That it ‘Enters the Electric Era With The New Taycan’
  • 12 hours How High Can Oil Prices Rise? (Part 2 of my previous thread)
  • 40 mins Saudi Crown Prince to Trump: We've Replaced All Iran's Lost Oil
  • 5 hours Who's Ready For The Next Contest?
  • 1 hour UN Report Suggests USD $240 Per Gallon Gasoline Tax to Fight Global Warming
  • 1 hour Mexico State Oil
Is This China’s First Defeat In The Trade War?

Is This China’s First Defeat In The Trade War?

Beijing slapped a 10 percent…

OPEC Turns On The Taps To Counter Iranian Outages

OPEC Turns On The Taps To Counter Iranian Outages

OPEC reported a collapse in…

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Anti-Pipeline Activists

Enbridge

Minnesota state district judge Robert Tiffany has dismissed charges against three climate change activists who shut down two pipelines operated by Enbridge back in 2016. Although they had reason to be happy with the judge’s decision, the defendants were in fact disappointed: the acquittal happened mid-trial, before they had a chance to use their defense, which would have run along the lines of necessity.

The necessity defense is rarely used by attorneys, MPR News reports, and comes down to an argument that a person’s actions, although illegal, were justifiable as they sought to prevent a greater harm. If they were found guilty, the defendants would have faced prison time and fines. However, the judge said their actions had not caused any damage to the infrastructure.

"We did this action two, almost two years ago to the day, Thursday will be the second anniversary, because the problem of climate change is so urgent that we have to start shutting down tar sands pipelines down now," one of the defendants, Emily Johnston told MPR News.

The defendants’ attorney, Lauren Regan, was also disappointed they didn’t get to use the necessity defense. "We, of course, were incredibly excited to put on what would have been the dream necessity defense for the climate movement. Our experts were phenomenal. And you know if we couldn't convince rural community members who doubted the existence of climate change with this group of people we would have really had an uphill battle," she said.

Naturally, Enbridge’s response was very different. In a statement, the company said, "The individuals involved in these activities claimed to be protecting the environment, but they did the opposite and put the environment and the safety of people at risk — including themselves, first responders and neighboring communities and landowners."

A representative of a local pro-pipeline organization commented that the shutdown of a pipeline valve was a dangerous action: "'Turning the valve' was really trying to stop a 1.5-billion-pound batch of oil traveling around 8 miles per hour at one spot with one valve. It would be the same as trying to stop five 100-car trains full of oil at the same time by putting a crossing arm in front of it."

The defendants claimed they had taken precautions before turning the valve—after they called Enbridge to warn them—but never got to share these precautions with the court.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News