Maria McCutcheon is a resident of Wilmington.
I write in response to the Opinion by Paul Eidman (“Big Oil is duping us about offshore wind”). Mr. Eidman and Brown University fail to mention that oil companies (like Equinor, BP and Shell) invest in offshore wind (OSW) around the world, and now, trillion-dollar private equity entities (like BlackRock) have taken over many offshore wind investments to ensure their completion in return for profit. Anti-wind activists have none of that. We are the true grassroots in this battle. The claim that anti-wind advocates are sock puppets (artificial bots) flooding social media with anti-wind propaganda is a blatant lie and very telling, as the only scripted and repetitive propaganda seen on social media comes from the pro-wind side. The pro-wind lobby gaslights and accuses its opposition of the very tactics it uses. Even on the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management lease conference calls, numerous pro-wind commenters read from the exact same script provided to them by offshore wind advocacy groups that have received monetary gifts from OSW entities.
Mr. Eidman claims that there is zero evidence linking offshore wind equipment to whale deaths. This is false. OSW proponents claim that the dramatic increase in whale deaths is due to vessel strikes but fail to mention what is driving the whales into shipping lanes. Much research provides proof that piledriving and sonar seafloor mapping conducted during OSW construction causes deafness in whales, essentially blinds them and drives them into areas where they cannot hear ships: See randacoustics-sonarvesselnoisesurvey.pdf, randacoustics_piledrivingnoisesurvey.pdf, drive.google.com/file/d/1lTjSciFV9dSD2FxHbC_roHdtr8louDCV/view and Direct hearing measurements in a baleen whale suggest ultrasonic sensitivity.
Anglers like Mr. Eidman may wish to capitalize on the hope that fishing may be good beneath the behemoth turbines’ bases. But offshore wind turbines are extremely loud and their persistent hum disturbing. There will be no peaceful fishing near turbines. Boat engine breakdowns in the vicinity of the bases can result in vessels striking the bases with the current, and Coast Guard helicopter rescue will be nearly impossible around moving, massive blades — therefore requiring extra maneuvers to stop or avoid the blades, costing minutes that could save lives. On the BOEM lease calls, container ship captains warned of the dangers of turbines to turning ships and the resulting engine failure, claiming lives will be lost.
Wind companies never seem to have enough money to fund their own projects or to lower ratepayer costs — and expect taxpayers to provide them enormous subsidies to boot. But wind companies do have billions to buy out local and global environmental groups and government representatives, in return for their advocacy. Indeed, it was established that US Wind engaged in secret negotiations with municipality stakeholders in Delaware and made donations to environmental groups to affect its OSW approval process. Those fighting the offshore wind battle have done none of this. Nevertheless, they are working tirelessly to save our seashores from industrialization for no money or profit. The same cannot be said of OSW proponents.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
