What Greenpeace vs. Energy Transfer Reveals About Risk

Fossil Fuel Risk Isn’t Abstract – It’s 1.34 Million Gallons of Oil

Between 2018 and mid‑2025, Energy Transfer and its affiliates reported 300 hazardous liquid spills in the United States. That’s roughly one spill every nine days, totaling about 1.34 million gallons of oil. During the same period, they reported 5,000+ million cubic feet of gas releases.

Those numbers aren’t just about one pipeline giant. They’re a window into how the fossil fuel system really works, who bears the risk, and why groups like Greenpeace are fighting in court while also calling out environmental damage on the ground.

This matters because anyone working on climate, green technology, or responsible investing is making decisions in the shadow of this infrastructure. Pipelines and gas terminals shape air quality, climate emissions, and political power. Understanding the Energy Transfer–Greenpeace clash helps you see the stakes more clearly: how pollution, legal pressure, and community safety are all intertwined.

I’ll walk through what Greenpeace’s new report says about Energy Transfer’s environmental record, why the lawsuit against Greenpeace isn’t just a legal story, and what this all means for communities, policymakers, and companies trying to accelerate a green transition.

The Greenpeace–Energy Transfer Clash, Explained

The core of the conflict is simple: a major fossil fuel pipeline operator sued one of the world’s most visible environmental groups — and won hundreds of millions of dollars.

A North Dakota jury in March 2025 found Greenpeace USA liable for its role in protests against Energy Transfer’s Dakota Access Pipeline, initially awarding about $667 million in damages. A judge later cut that to roughly $345 million, but even the reduced number is massive for a nonprofit.

Greenpeace calls the case a SLAPP — a strategic lawsuit against public participation — arguing the goal is to make people think twice before criticizing or protesting fossil fuel projects. Energy Transfer says the verdict is a win for “law‑abiding Americans” and a line between free speech and illegal activity.

Instead of backing down, Greenpeace released a detailed report, “Bad Neighbor,” documenting environmental and safety incidents across Energy Transfer’s network: pipelines, offshore gas lines, joint ventures, and subsidiaries.

“There is something wrong with a system that lets polluters off the hook but penalizes those who oppose them.” – Greenpeace report

Here’s the thing about this fight: it’s not really about two brands arguing in the media. It’s about whether communities, advocates, and investors can point to fossil fuel harms without being buried in legal risk.

Inside Energy Transfer’s Environmental Record

Energy Transfer is one of the central arteries of the U.S. fossil fuel system. It transports about 30% of U.S. natural gas and 40% of U.S. crude oil production. When a company that big has problems, they ripple across states and ecosystems.

Spills and Leaks: Oil Every Nine Days

According to Greenpeace’s analysis of federal data from 2018 through June 2025:

• 300 hazardous liquid spills were reported by Energy Transfer, its subsidiaries, and joint ventures.
• Nearly 250 incidents involved oil, totaling 31,860 barrels (about 1.34 million gallons).
• Roughly two‑thirds of spills occurred in Texas, where Energy Transfer is based and where much of its network runs through communities and fragile ecosystems.

Greenpeace also counted 126 natural gas release incidents, together emitting over 5,000 million cubic feet (MMcf) of gas. That’s not just wasted product; it’s climate‑warming methane and other pollutants going straight into the air.

Energy Transfer responds that the report recycles public data and misattributes some issues to them where they only hold a passive ownership stake. Greenpeace is transparent about its method: it includes joint ventures where Energy Transfer owns more than 25%, plus operated subsidiaries, arguing that level of ownership still reflects real influence and profit from the assets.

The reality? Whether you call it a “passive” stake or not, someone is profiting while communities deal with the risk.

Recent “Major Disasters” and High‑Impact Incidents

Greenpeace highlights four “major disasters” linked to Energy Transfer and affiliates since September 2024. A few examples show what that risk looks like on the ground:

1. Deer Park Pipeline Explosion, Texas (September 2024)

• A car crashed into a pipeline valve at Energy Transfer’s Justice pipeline near Houston.
• The crash caused a massive explosion and fire; the driver was killed (later ruled a suicide).
• Fire burned for over three days while the pipeline depressurized.
• More than 38,793 barrels of highly volatile liquids were released.
• Air emissions included 18,312 pounds of nitrogen oxides and 383,214 pounds of volatile organic compounds.
• Four people were injured, five homes damaged, and over 1,000 homes, businesses, and schools were covered by a shelter‑in‑place order.

Texas regulators later found no safety violations and issued no fines. A process safety engineer called that a “red flag,” pointing out that when people die and neighborhoods are endangered, there’s nearly always something that could be improved.

Energy Transfer did add new concrete barricades after the fact. That’s better than nothing, but it underscores a bigger pattern: many safety upgrades happen only after a disaster.

2. Gulf of Mexico Gas Leaks (January and May 2025)

On the offshore Sea Robin pipeline:

• Three leaks in early 2025 released over 3,000 MMcf of natural gas.
• All three rank among the five largest gas releases reported to federal regulators by any company since 2010.

Gas released offshore doesn’t stay offshore. It contributes to climate change and can alter marine conditions. For companies touting methane reductions, incidents like this are hard to reconcile with climate commitments.

3. Arlington Oil Spill, Texas (May 2025)

• About 6,600 barrels (277,200 gallons) of crude oil leaked underground.
• The oil entered a broken sewer line and arrived at a wastewater treatment plant miles away.
• A well‑known birding area had to be closed.
• Cleanup costs were estimated at $5 million.

If you work on environmental justice or local advocacy, this is the nightmare scenario: an underground spill you can’t see right away, quietly traveling through infrastructure that was built for something else.

Why This Matters for Green Technology and Climate Policy

On paper, Energy Transfer has been fined over $100 million by regulators over three decades. In 2024, the company reported $80 billion in revenue. You don’t need to be a financial analyst to see the problem: for a company that size, pollution fines are often just a line item.

This creates three big challenges for anyone serious about a green transition.

1. Compliance Isn’t the Same as Safety

If regulators can investigate a multi‑day explosion in a dense suburb and still find zero violations, you’ve got a structural gap between “legal” and “safe.”

For communities and local leaders, that means:

• Don’t assume “no violations” means “no risk.”
• Push for independent assessments, not just operator self‑reporting.
• Treat near‑misses and small spills as warning signs, not acceptable losses.

2. Fossil Infrastructure Locks In Climate Risk

Energy Transfer’s operations in the Permian Basin alone are estimated to emit millions of metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. This is while the company also expands into liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and offshore operations.

Most companies get this wrong: they talk about “balancing” fossil investment with clean energy pilots. But as long as giant pipeline networks are expanding, they’re locking in decades of emissions, because those assets are designed to operate over long lifespans to pay back investors.

That’s why climate‑aligned strategies increasingly focus on:

• Blocking new long‑lived fossil infrastructure.
• Accelerating decommissioning of the oldest, riskiest assets.
• Channeling capital into grid upgrades, storage, and renewable generation instead.

3. Legal Pressure Can Chill Climate Advocacy

Whether you agree with Greenpeace’s tactics or not, a $345 million judgment against a nonprofit has a predictable effect: smaller community groups and local coalitions ask themselves, “Could we be next?”

Greenpeace argues this is exactly why SLAPPs are used — to raise the cost of speaking out. If communities near pipelines don’t feel safe organizing, testifying, or even sharing data, then fossil fuel risk stays invisible until something explodes or spills.

For policymakers and funders who care about green technology adoption, defending the right to protest and criticize isn’t side‑issue activism; it’s infrastructure. Without public pressure, dirty infrastructure wins by default.

Practical Moves for Communities, Investors, and Green Businesses

So where does this leave people trying to accelerate cleaner, safer energy systems? Here’s what actually helps.

For Local Governments and Communities

1. Map the Risk
   Identify every major pipeline, gas plant, and storage facility within or near your jurisdiction. Pay special attention to:

   • Schools and hospitals
   • High‑density housing
   • Critical water infrastructure (treatment plants, rivers, wetlands)

2. Plan for Accidents Before They Happen
   Use recent incidents as templates:

   • Do you have clear shelter‑in‑place and evacuation protocols?
   • Are communication channels tested, multilingual, and fast?
   • Are there agreements in place for independent air and water monitoring after an incident?

3. Push for Design Changes, Not Just Cleanup
   After an accident, focus on:

   • Physical barriers (like the concrete barricades added in Deer Park)
   • Routing changes away from dense neighborhoods
   • Stronger setback requirements from homes and schools

For Investors and Corporate Sustainability Teams

1. Treat Spills and Fines as Core Risk Signals
   Don’t just look at whether a company technically complies with current law. Look at:

   • Frequency and severity of spills and gas releases
   • Pattern of litigation around safety and environmental enforcement
   • Transparency and responsiveness when incidents occur

2. Rebalance Toward Green Infrastructure
   Capital doesn’t have to be neutral. Money that stays in high‑risk fossil assets is a choice. Money directed toward:

   • Renewables
   • Storage
   • Grid modernization
   • Building efficiency

   is what actually reduces long‑term climate and regulatory risk.

3. Support Strong Free‑Speech and Anti‑SLAPP Protections
   This might sound political, but it’s also basic risk management. When public watchdogs can’t speak freely, investors see only the upside narrative, and real risk gets hidden until it’s expensive.

For Green Tech Companies and Campaigns

If you’re building or selling climate solutions, this story is an opportunity, not just a warning.

• Use concrete data from incidents like these to explain why your solution matters. “One company spilled 1.34 million gallons of oil in seven years” lands harder than generic climate talk.
• Frame your tech as a risk‑reduction tool. Less fossil fuel burned means fewer pipelines, fewer explosions, fewer communities breathing volatile organic compounds.
• Build alliances with frontline groups. They see the impacts first and often have the most compelling stories. Combined with solid tech, that’s powerful.

Where This Fight Goes Next

Greenpeace isn’t done in court; post‑trial motions are ongoing, and an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court is on the table. Energy Transfer isn’t slowing its operations. Communities from the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast continue living with the daily reality of leaks, flares, and sirens.

The reality is simpler than most industry statements: as long as fossil fuel infrastructure dominates, environmental harm and community risk are baked into the system. The numbers around Energy Transfer just make that visible.

If you care about a livable climate, healthier cities, or stable, future‑proof investments, the choice is pretty stark:

• Accept that spills, explosions, and methane leaks are a permanent feature of the energy system; or
• Help speed up the shift to green technology, stronger protections, and louder, better‑protected public voices.

The second path needs more than good intentions. It needs people and organizations willing to act — from city planners and investors to founders and advocates — and to keep asking hard questions when billion‑dollar companies would rather they stayed quiet.