In defense of oil
In defense of oil
I read with considerable amusement the recent tirades of Harold and Dana Kraus against the oil industry and all the environmental harm it has caused in the county. They conveniently ignored the tax revenues, jobs and local economic benefits provided by the oil industry -- exploration, servicing and transport -- all of which vastly exceed, and positively affect far more people, anything likely to arise from the wind energy development they so ardently support.
They also ignore the fact that modern oil extraction is held to stringent environmental regulations -- none of which they want to see applied to wind energy and its negative local impacts.
And, excuse me, but hasn't the Kraus family, in addition to receiving the largest share of agricultural subsidies in the county for the past 10 years, also received substantial income from multiple oil leases on their land for many decades? Now, suddenly, they develop an environmental conscience -- just as many of their oil leases are expiring or running dry? Can you spell "hypocrisy"?
Could it be that the Kraus family's abrupt conversion into supporters of all things green was motivated by financial convenience? After all, they are now scheduled to be the largest local beneficiaries of the Iberdrola wind project. Turbines good, oil wells bad -- at least as long as they are profiting from them.
It seems predictable that, should turbines become unfashionable and lose their generous public subsidies, the Kraus family will be the first to denounce the wind industry, decry the inefficiencies of turbines and whine for public assistance in ridding themselves of the hideous machines that, after all, they installed only to benefit the environment and the public need for "clean" energy.
J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.
In posting my response to Mr. Michaud's letter, I was making no comments about the wonderful people of Ellis County, both those for and against the wind farm project. It was mostly to highlight that his words/arguments for oil could be used for wind. I don't know the people on either side of this wind issue and have never attended a commission meeting. However, I have met with Ms. Gordon to discuss the details of the leases and possible conflicts with Oil and Gas leases. From reading the lease and from that meeting I can tell you that most of the comments about what is to become of these towers at the end of the leases and about building them in someones backyard are uninformed and baseless, but mostly fear-mongering. I consider myself an environmentalist. I am also a person of business. If these landowners can make more money from wind more power to them. Just from reading the comments on this thread it is apparent that it boils down to those who didn't get their property leased are in a slow simmer knowing that they aren't making money every day the wind blows. My advice to these people is be patient. With the wind here in Kansas, I foresee turbines all across the Western half of the state, if not more. This Ellis Co. project will be expanded once the infrastructure is in place. Why do I believe that? Did oil production cease after the Carrie Oswald pool? Money talks, BS walks. Thats life in a capitalist society. If I stepped on anyone's toes, I apologize. I just want to point out some common sense application to the situation and hand out a dose of reality.
(Posted by: Max Eulert, Ellis)
Negatives: 9/2/2008
Windfarms are a great novelty and they should be welcome in Kansas, just not in people's backyards. If you take I-70 and exit to the North at the Lincoln exit you can pull off the road and listen to them, especially if the wind is from the north. We have thousands of acres in Western Kansas and there is no reason to put them right next to peoples homes. The property owners have a right to have them on their ground, but the home owners have a right to a peaceful living. This is a true right and our commissioners failed to recognize this right. Maybe if the commissioners could have gotten 8 million a year from Iberdrola like the people in New York State, this project would have more support. But, our commisssioners took the first offer on the table because they have no idea how to deal with big business. Get rid of them and the problem will go away.
(Posted by: jd)
Good for you, Max: 9/1/2008
We're so tired of hearing little Johnny spout off. His ego must ne enormous. How many people does he employ? Oh, wait, his significant other? Talk about a man who can't make a commitment! I've been aware of the Kraus name all my life -- I don't see any of them living high on the hog. Nearly all have spouses working full time; most keep a line of credit from year to year. And what wealth they do have comes from decades of frugal living. It was months after the first company made local cantact with landowners that it was learned that lease money could be had. It seems little Johnny is plenty jealose. Same I've heard of the oil men who are backing opposition. They tried to recuit the corporation to come to their land in the NE part of the county. When the wind wasn't good enough, they start to cry foul. And what's with this law suit? The only one who will benefit is their attorney . . . and he'll likely encourage the opposition to keep filing dribble in order to drag it out for years. But if local oil is backing them, then why not?
(Posted by: Maura Walbrick)
: 8/28/2008
Please, Max Eulert evidently you do not know the Kraus' and the rest who have signed their souls away to have this potential windfarm. In his quote: those who have struggled to make ends meet due to crop failures, poor crop and livestock markets and the ever-increasing input costs (fuel, fertilizer, equipment)! HAHAHA!, these farmers are some of the riches people in Ellis County, how do I know this? I was ONCE friends with a great majority of these people. And they are wanting to get richer by stabbing their ONCE friends in the back with a very long blade!
(Posted by: my2cents)
: 8/26/2008
A cell phone kiosk in the mall employees more people than a developed wind farm. During the construction the only thing bought locally is sand and gravel. During construction expect bars and the police to be busier, don't expect much else economically. PILOT payments won't keep up with inflation, roughly $20. per person in Ellis county for the current project, won't be worth much in 20 years. At the end of their life span the turbines will be a hot potato as not any company will want to have the liability. The only value will be the copper and that most likely disappear as will the last owner, leaving the towers to whoever is unlucky enough to to own the land at the time. Trading oil development land for wind farms doesn't make much sense economically and so far wind farms don't do much to power a car. Suckers are born every day.
(Posted by: Poncho Dink)
In defense of wind: 8/26/2008
J. P. Michaud's letter - written back at him: In defense of Wind I read with considerable amusement the recent tirades of J. P. Michaud against the Wind Energy industry and all the environmental harm it will cause in the county. He conveniently ignored the tax revenues, jobs and local economic benefits provided by the wind industry -- construction, servicing and transport -- all of which vastly exceed, and positively affect far more people, anything likely to arise from banning them as he so ardently supports. He also ignores the fact that wind energy is has no toxic by-products which would cause it to be held to stringent environmental regulations -- none of which need to be applied to wind energy and its posiative local impacts. And, excuse me, but hasn't Michaud, in addition to receiving the benefit of a state job in which he doesn’t have to make a profit because no matter what he does he has the same income month after month - with benfits? Now, suddenly, he develops an environmental conscience, condemning those who have struggled to make ends meet due to crop failures, poor crop and livestock markets and the ever-increasing input costs (fuel, fertilizer, equipment)! Can you spell "density"? Could it be that Michaud's senseless aversion of all things ‘wind’ is motivated by financial sour grapes? After all, he is not scheduled to be a beneficiary of the largest local economic boon brought about by the Iberdrola wind project. Profits bad, turbines bad -- at least as long as he isn’t profiting from them. It seems predictable that, should Michaud come into some property that will support a turbine or two and become a beneficary of their generous public subsidies, then Michaud will be the loudest proponent of the wind industry, espouse the efficiencies of turbines and lobby for public assistance in building more infrastructure to allow more of the graceful money making machines.
(Posted by: Max Eulert, Ellis)
All comments are subject to approval before being posted. Please keep comments constructive and relevant. Opinions certainly can be expressed, but comments that are rude, abusive, slanderous, threatening, sexually oriented, contain profanity or are vulgar will not be tolerated. Comments will not be edited. Any comment that violates the above-listed rules will be deleted.
