A wind farm is to be built near a nature preserve despite Osage Indian protests
Guest post by Dale R. McIntyre
A big-city corporation rams through industrial development on a pristine landscape against the wishes of the local Native Americans, who fear their burial grounds and traditional use of the land will be impaired. Sound familiar?
There are twists, however, and irony enough to make it a “three-pipe problem”.
The corporation is Wind Capital Group LLC, of St. Louis, building a wind farm west of Pawhuska, Oklahoma.
The Native Americans are the Osage Nation of Oklahoma, and the traditional land use they see threatened is oil and gas drilling.
On Thursday, Dec. 15th, 2011, Wind Capital Group won a ruling from US district judge Gregory Frizzel that the wind farm could proceed despite the protests of the Osages.
Wind Capital wants to rush construction of the wind farm to qualify for a 2.2 cent/kW-hr federal tax subsidy, loss of which would “jeopardize the very existence of the wind facility.” (Tulsa World, Dec. 16th, 2011, p. 1)
Osage Nation Principal Chief John Red Eagle has stated that”…the target area for wind development would intrude upon sacred Osage burial sites, posing a major threat to the tribe’s culture.”(Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, Dec. 16th, 2011,, p.1)
The eastern edge of the proposed wind farm site is about 3 miles from the boundary of the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, home to 2500 bison on one of the last remnants of pristine tallgrass prairie left on the continent. To the east, Bluestem Lake hosts Canadian geese, pelicans, red-tailed hawks and peregrine falcons. Bald eagles winter over at Kaw Lake to the west.
I own land, fish, hunt and[ ramble] in the area so I know it as a majestic rolling grassland. In spring the Indian Paint Brushes, the red clover, bluebonnets and a dozen varieties of sunflower paint the landscape in a riot of color bold enough to delight Chagall. Deer and puma, wild turkey and coyotes play deadly games of hide and seek in the thick groves of cottonwood, cedar and blackjack oak along the creek beds.
The sight and sound of large wind turbines grates the nerves in such a place, as does their grisly record of killing birds. But the Osage Nation has another very pragmatic objection; they fear the wind farm will interfere with their oil and gas drilling.
In 1906, the Osage Nation took control of all mineral rights in the 1.5 million acre Osage Indian Reservation, now Oklahoma’s Osage County. Since then, surface rights pass by sale from owner to owner, but the mineral rights stay with the Osage tribe.
Thus for over 100 years, oil and gas have been critical to the economy of Osage County. The royalties are shared out among tribal members every year, and make a welcome addition to hardscrabble incomes from ranching and farming. “Big Oil” has no presence in Osage County. Small local companies produce the wells and many very welcome local jobs. Osage County wells are small “stripper wells”, pumped by nodding “pump jacks”. They typically make 2 to 10 barrels of crude per day.
(Larger firms may join in future as more complicated horizontal wells are drilled to exploit the “shale gas revolution.”)
Chief Red Eagle insisted in court that the wind farm would impair this vital tribal revenue stream by intefering with access to key drilling sites.
Wind Capital Croup brought experts to court who testified that the inconvenience to oil and gas drillers would be small. The judge agreed.
Wind Capital Group spokesmen say they are eager to work with the Osage Nation. They point out that the wind farm will create jobs (Construction will require 150-200 workers, but the construction contractor, RMT Inc., is from out of state. Permanent jobs are estimated as “12-15”. The believe property taxes on the wind farm will be a windfall to the tiny nearby rural school district of Shidler.
Tales with devilish villains and saintly heroes are for movies. Wind Capital Group is playing by the rules, and building on private land, whose owners have the right to exploit their property for lawful gain. The Osage Nation is not a collection of beggarly blanket Indians. They are well-represented, well-connected politically, with a shrewd sense of their rights and a determination to assert them. On January 24th, 2012, Chief Red Eagle announced a formal appeal of Judge Frizzell’s ruling (Lucinda Bray, Pawhuska Journal-Capital, Jan 25th, 2012)
As for those burial grounds, well, they are not so sensitive that oil and gas drilling disturbs them.
But all who dream of low-carbon energy should recognize that wind farms will intrude on huge areas considering the small amount of intermittent power they produce. The areas thus intruded upon are not sterile desert or blighted brownfield urban sites. The Osage County Wind Project is cheek-by-jowl with one of the most idyllic nature preserves in mid-continental America. Another wind farm, near Woodward, Oklahoma, is a prime suspect in the disappearance of the bats from neary Alabaster Caverns.
Since these wind farms do not proceed at all in the absence of whacking great federal subsidies, wind farm projects seem to be creating a new special interest group, with its own lobbyists, its own pet legislators, and its own corporate sponsors determined to preserve a very high rate of return on capital.
Call it “Big Wind”.
Meanwhile, the bison in the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve will just have to learn to graze, fight, breed and give birth to the high-pitched whine and stroboscopic “swish” of the turbines.
As for the birds, the geese, the pelicans, the eagles and those graceful, soaring hawks making their “lazy circles in the sky”, well, they’ll just have to watch where they’re going. Inattention will get them chopped into coyote sashimi by the turbine blades.
Has anybody modeled the bird strike problem, a properly tuned model may tell us that wind turbines actually create more birds than they kill.
Tom said
“Can we *please* drop the “grisly record of killing birds” line? Any actual research that’s been done has found that a wind turbine could kill as much as… er… 0.6 birds per year. And that’s the upper limit – the average is more like 0.2 (see Garcia 2007, Lekuona and Ursua, 2007 – Dirksen et al, 2007 found much lower rates). That’s right, each “bird-shredder” kills four birds in its twenty-year life, and some particularly vicious examples kill as many as twelve birds in twenty years.”
The latest studies show deaths to birds are many orders of magnitude greater than the figures you cite
http://www.warmwell.com/raptors.html
Britain is way ahead of the States in siting wind farms in beautiful and sensitive areas as our land mass is physically much smaller and our best landscapes also tend to be the windiest. On shore Wind turbines are a dead end using inefficient and costly technology, and we are only going down this road as the greens continually opposed other forms of power generation.
tonyb
Pamela Gray says:
February 2, 2012 at 6:41 am
The difference between trees and wind turbines is this – tree branches are stationary, neglecting swaying with the wind. The linear velocity of the blade tip on a wind turbine can be quite impressive. Do the math –
Length of blade = 100’ so R = 100
pi*200’ = 628’
Reasonable rotational velocity = 20 rpm
628(20) = 12560 ft/min = speed of the tip of the blade = 143 mph
Here in Vancouver, BC, they built a big bird chopper right on top of Grouse mountain, in a prey bird habitat. They even have an elevator that takes you way up to there so you can see the guts closer. Can they get any more stupid than that?
Look at it: http://www.grousemountain.com/eye-of-the-wind
Tom
An acquaintance of mine works for an environmental research company and his job includes documenting turbine moralities..something has done for years. He has spent hundreds of days surveying turbine properties. Here is what he wrote me …
There is potential for really bad intrusions (aka ____ that has had [one-time] incidents of 500+ bats). The standard figure that is floating around out there is that turbines kill 1 bird or bat per year. This is a complete hoax let me tell you. My best guess….would be somewhere between 8-10 birds and bats (combined) per turbine per year at a low impact farm. Most wind farms have a 25 year life expectancy so you could extrapolate that each turbine will kill roughly 200-250 animals in its functional life. These numbers are subject to a high amount of variability, but if anything I would be willing to bet that they underestimate the true numbers.
The big birds killers are: buildings, vehicles, domestic and feral CATS and transmission lines. Wind farms may never catch up, but they don’t deserve to get a free ride around enviro reviews. If a pipeline or other fossil fuel facility ( that could potentially kill wildlife) is proposed there is no end to the complaining & hollering.
Wind farms get a an undeserved “bye” when it comes to environmental impact studies. They are useless, subsidized scourges!
Clive
As a professional engineer. I confess that I don’t think that wind power farms are as esthetically ugly as some other people do. Engineers tend to like large pieces of equipment – you know, “big toys for big boys”.
BUT:
1. Wind farms produce essentially no useful, economic energy;
AND
2. Wind farms are probably net-energy-value-negative over their project life;
AND
3. Wind farms require essentially 100% active standby backup from conventional power generation plants;
AND
4. Wind farms require huge life-of-project subsidies;
AND
5. Wind farms needlessly increase the cost of electricity for all, including those who can least afford it, contributing to “energy poverty”;
AND
6. Wind farms can de-stabilize the electric power grid, due to the huge peaks and lulls in their power generation profile;
AND
7. Wind farms kill millions of birds and bats worldwide, including some seriously endangered species.
AND
8. Wind farms may be one of the most useless, counterproductive devices ever invented by humankind.
So wind farms are economically ugly and environmentally ugly, and in summary are just plain old ugly.
“Wind Power – It Doesn’t Just Blow – it Sucks!”
JimBob says:
February 2, 2012 at 4:38 am
The same thing has already happened in Kansas, with the Elk River wind farm. Southeast Kansas has some truly beautiful scenery but the big wind farm pollutes it for miles and miles. I think it’s ironic that you can’t build a shed in your back yard in some communities without someone complaining it’s an eyesore, but if you are “green” you can build a wind farm that is an eyesore for dozens of square miles and get away with it.
======================================================
JimBob, I had no idea you were a homeboy! I drive 400 often. And yes, it is a horrible blight to the some of the most breathtaking scenery imaginable. For those who haven’t seen it, just look at what they’ve done ….. http://www.geospectra.net/kite/beaumont/beaumont03.jpg
On an aside, a couple of years ago, during the height of summer, the hottest day of the year for the small utility I work for, there wasn’t a kWh to be purchased by that wind farm. The wind wasn’t blowing. When we needed it the most, the electricity wasn’t there.
Tom says:
February 2, 2012 at 2:15 am
How about citing your source(s)? Enlighten the rest of us.
@Tom
You chose a bad day to trivialise bird-shredding. Take a look at the American Bird Conservancy’s press release today. They quote the Fish & Wildlife Services estimate of 440,000 birds per year in 2009, noting that this is on installed capacity far below that envisaged by 2030. Their conclusion is that at least a million birds each year will be taken out by these machines, and probably many more than that.
We all understand that a few million is still a small percentage of the total bird population (although it will be species such as the Golden Eagle and the Whooping Crane that will be disproportionally affected, even to the point of regional disappearance or worse); what we cannot understand is the utterly sick philosphy that couldn’t care less about the indiscriminate carnage caused by windfarms, yet goes absolutely apesh*t on the rare occasions a handful of birds are accidentally maimed by an oil or gas installation.
I really am starting to worry about you folks, truly.
@DirkH says:
February 2, 2012 at 6:12 am
What if these windmills exterminate the AMERICAN EAGLE?, that would be more than symbolic!
I understand the wind power subsidy expires at the end of 2012. Hence the rush to get these things going now before the public teat dries up.
[MORE] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577186993654897460.html
I recently read a cited statistic from the US Department of Fish and Wildlife. The source claimed 400,000 bird deaths per year.
Hmmm, but off with the heads of execs at Georgia-Pacific if just one Spotted Owl is found dead.
Traveled through Scranton PA recently, big wind has ruined the scene there. Pathetic attempt at political gain.
Regarding bird kills — If you’re an OIL company and kill a bird, you get prosecuted http://plainsdaily.com/entry/oil-companies-arraigned-in-federal-court-for-28-bird-deaths-in-nd/. (OK, that’s only for federally protected species.)
But if you’re a wind farm, you skate http://epaabuse.com/3648/videos/california-wind-farm-manufacturers-skate-free-from-bird-killing-charges/
Sonicfrog: “I live in California… I’ll trade them our high-speed rail for their wind farm.”
Oh, may the fates please kindly let the high-speed rail project die. And soon. Before any more money is wasted. I’ve been on a years-long “told you so” about this boondoggle. Still not happy about how the ballot initiative was, in my view, deceptively worded. Some of us could see this was a disaster in the making, but it is hard for the average person who isn’t familiar with legalese and is just trying to get through the day who shows up and votes because, hey, it’s their civic duty. High-speed rail from north to south? Sure, sounds good. Punches “yes” on the ballot . . .
You could save a lot of subsidies, rent money and political strife if you’d just make all the forest and nature preserves available to the wind farms at no cost. Even take the minerals necessary to build them from there. After all, they’re good for nature? How can I not feel totally at one with nature with a 100 turbines hovering over my fishing boat from two miles away? (/”jadism”)
We’re putting urban blight all over the countryside as a temporary non-solution to the CO2 non-problem that will be eclipsed by a hundred other technologies long before those hulks rust back into oblivion.
Lady in Red says:
February 2, 2012 at 2:34 am
Nah, it’s Solyndra all over again. Wind Capital Group got $107 million in taxpayer bucks –
and is hosting a $25K plate fundraiser for Obama:
——————————————
I am flabberghasted that nothing can be done about the green graft even after such high profile scandals as Solyndra. The pork-u-lous was the biggest ripp-off in the history of America. The Donk connected grifters get hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars at pennies on a dollar in Obama campaign donations. The green “investing in America” is in practice green laundering of monies taken from US tax payers and put into Donk crony pockets. This Carnahan family seem like the Missouri equivalent of the Daleys of Chicago.
As per your link Ironically The mega-rich Carnahans can enlist the services of poor ghetto folk, who won’t see a red cent out of it, to attack people that dare to protest the blatant graft… unbelievable.
Austin says:
February 2, 2012 at 7:49 am
I am always amused by people who enjoy the “beautiful landscape” but do not know the horrors that lie in the balance sheets of most ranches or the backbreaking despair of a long drought or the misery of constant rains. You get to enjoy the beauty but contribute NOTHING to making ranching work. Then one day show up to tell us how to run our place or try to stop us from doing what we have to do to pass the land on to the next generation.
_______________________
Like hell we don’t contribute to that ranch.
Tell you how to run your place? Stop sucking up tax money and make it or break it on your own like the rest of us.
Ranchers enjoy some of the greatest tax advantages that exist and this whole wind power thing is just a great drain on the pockets of all the rest of us taxpayers and just one more subsidy for the landowners.
Not only that, but modern ranchers already benefit from one of the greatest boondoggles of all time. They are paid for running wild horses to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each year and it is only going to get worse as there is absolutely nothing to keep the wild herd populations in check, which means that the horses will eventually be caught and relocated to yet another ranch, where we will pay a daily fee to the rancher for the rest of the horses life. You take land out of actual cattle production, raising the price of beef and get rich with fat subsidies, all at our expense.
This nation will reach over $17 trillion dollars in debt this year. The time has long passed since we can afford such foolishness, not that we ever could.
You complain that we get to enjoy the view? It’s already almost impossible to get permission to even step off the road onto some of the Osage ranches, without having to pay a fee for doing so, and you can just about forget finding a place to hunt/fish without paying huge ‘lease’ fees. If it was up to some of you, you’d try to charge us for the view.
@Marion – No, that would be the difference between a large-scale wind turbine that actually makes at least some sort of economic and environmental sense and the sort of propaganda-generating toy the school decided to put up. To explain a bit – turbines operate at maximum efficiency when the tip speed (linear speed) is a certain multiple of the wind speed (depending on the blade design). The tip speed = rate of rotation x blade length, so a shorter blade needs to turn faster to give the same efficiency, while a longer blade can turn more slowly. A very small turbine, like what you see on some boats, has to turn very fast, but is small enough that it’s unlikely a bird will go near it. A very large turbine is big enough that birds go near it, but turning slowly enough that birds can mostly avoid it. In the middle are turbines that might nearly deserve the name ‘bird shredders’.
@Clive – Yes, I think I’ll take your friend’s ‘best guess’ instead of an established scientific literature on the subject…
@Everyone who asked me to cite references – Erm… care to read again?
Often, there is more to the subsidy than just the 2.2 cents/kWh. The buyer of the energy is often a Utility that is forced to buy Renewable Energy to meet a state mandated Renewable Energy portfolio. Many utilities would not choose to buy the wind power if not forced by law. The Electric Utility passes the cost to the ratepayers. (They aren’t called customers, I guess because they don’t have much choice in the matter.)
Not only is the Electric Utility forced to buy the renewable energy at a higher rate than typical wholesale price, they are also forced to build or buy standby and peaking power or plants to cover the wind turbine down time (low wind or maintenance). These standby and peaking plants are typically the least efficient and most expensive form of generation in the fleet. So the power generated to cover the wind turbine downtime is not cheap power. (Don’t worry the ratepayer will cover the cost.) On the other hand, when the wind turbine generates more than they can use they are forced to sell the excess at a loss. (Again, please don’t worry the ratepayer will cover it) There is also the issue of grid stability. Wind turbines make it harder and more costly for the Electric Utility to maintain stability. So as long as you are not a ‘ratepayer” you are only covering the 2.2 cents/kWh coming out of your taxes. Just don’t pay your electric bill and you’ll be fine.
In my opinion, wind turbines do make sense when they are used to power loads that can tolerate the intermittant nature of the wind power. For instance charging batteries or puming water to a resevoir. Small scale wind turbines make much more sense than large scale. If we are going to subsidize renewable energy we should do it on a smaller scale. Perhaps 5 MW of less.
Just my 2 cents on the topic. Sorry no sources.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/rainforest-fungus-eats-plastic-potentially-solving-landfill-problems?cmp=tw
Yes indeed … “A Mighty Wind!” 🙂
In the Canadian oil sands, Syncrude was fined 3 million for the death of birds in the tailing ponds, see link below for details. Has anyone heard of fines to wind farms?
http://oilsandstruth.org/syncrude-fined-3m-duck-kill-tar-sands
This following utube link is interesting showing a relationship between birds killed and energy produced, comparing oil sands and windturbines.
Neil Jones and James Sexton,
Gentlemen,
“Rample” is a typographical error. Should read “ramble”.
The piece has several such in it, to my regret and embarrassment. Blame aging eyes and a late night.
DirkH found the PDF link for the Erickson paper. It’s from the USDA Forest Service. I found their acknowledgements at the end to be quite telling. Bought and paid for, I’d say:
“Acknowledgments
The effort to gather and summarize much of the literature
in this document was funded by DOE, with
direction and support from the Wildlife Working
Group of the National Wind Coordinating Committee.
Most of the collision mortality information was first
reported in the NWCC Resource Document entitled
“Avian collisions with wind turbines: A summary of
existing studies and comparisons to other sources of
avian collision mortality in the United States”
(Erickson et al. 2001). We appreciate the comments
from the reviewers of that report, including K. Sinclair
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory), A. Manville
(USFWS), P. Kerlinger (Curry and Kerlinger), S.
Ugoretz (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources),
T. Gray (American Wind Energy Association), and J.
Stewart (FPL Energy). We also appreciate the comments
on this manuscript from C. J. Ralph.”
This Erickson guy is absolutely in the pocket of “Big Wind”.