By Kellen McGovern Jones - "BlackRock Behind New TX-LA Offshore Wind Farm"

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

BlackRock Behind New TX-LA Offshore Wind Farm 

By Kellen McGovern Jones

https://dallasexpress.com/business-markets/blackrock-behind-new-tx-la-offshore-windfarm/

BlackRock holds partial ownership of the company that made the highest bid for the Biden administration’s planned offshore wind farm near Port Arthur, according to an investigation by The Dallas Express.

RWE Offshore US Gulf LLC’s largest investors are Qatar Holding (9.1%) and BlackRock (6.3%), per the company’s shareholder structure webpage. This upcoming 102,480-acre wind farm will allegedly produce 1.24 gigawatts of energy for thousands of homes, the Department of Interior (DOI) claimed last year.

Although the physical location of this planned construction is entirely on the Louisiana side of the Texas-Louisiana border, the closest city is Port Arthur, Texas. The project will draw Port Arthur and Lake Charles, Louisiana, which are both serviced by Gulf States Utility, closer together. It will be one of several efforts that increase the connectivity of energy production infrastructure in East Texas and Louisiana.

This wind farm is part of a larger Biden administration plan to develop 730,000 aquatic acres into a power system that will produce 30 yearly gigawatts by 2030, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. However, it is unclear whether this project will be realized. So far, there has been little interest from industry in Gulf Coast wind farms. Two similar federal projects outside of Galveston received zero bidders.

In an ominous sign for East Texas’ fishing industry, DOI granted RWE a bidding credit because of the company’s efforts at “establishing and contributing to a fisheries compensatory mitigation fund or contributing to an existing fund to mitigate potential negative impacts to commercial and for-hire recreational fisheries caused by offshore wind energy development in the Gulf of Mexico.”

The statement appeared to foreshadow the potential disruption or destruction of traditional fishing areas.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration has largely promoted the project, known in official documents as GOM WEA Option M, as a jobs creator and part of a transition to “clean energy.” Given Port Arthur’s placement as the nearest port and the likelihood that a significant portion of the construction force will come from there, some environmental activists, like those with the Sierra Club, have already begun pushing for minority groups to receive the construction contracts, according to the Texas Observer.

Option M is the latest twist in an increasingly complicated plot involving emerging BlackRock-backed business ventures in the Lone Star State and Texas officials. TXSE, a Texas-based competitor to the New York Stock Exchange, was recently announced to great acclaim from the highest echelons of the Texas government. However, one of TXSE’s largest financiers is BlackRock, The Dallas Express previously reported.

Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar were among the first to cheer on a Texas stock exchange, even though they both had previously led the charge against BlackRock because of the company’s ESG policies.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies are a type of activist investing that considers social change, like promoting “diversity,” along with making a profit for shareholders. BlackRock’s iteration of ESG was apparent from the company’s Climate 100+ agenda, which was intended to pivot the company’s investment away from fossil fuels toward alternative energy sources before the program was scaled back.

This corporate policy was widely perceived in Texas as a threat to the state’s crucial oil and gas industry. Abbott responded by signing SB 13, also known as the Investment Protection Act, into law in 2021. The law forbids several state entities, including some sovereign wealth funds, from doing business with any company that discriminates against Texas energy producers in the oil and gas industry.

SB 13 also mandated that the state comptroller compile a list identifying any company that might be in violation. Eventually, BlackRock and nine other companies appeared on Hegar’s list.

This conflict had an intensely public element. When BlackRock posted on Twitter last spring that it was “proud to invest in the future of Texas,” Abbott continued his campaign against the firm.

“I signed laws that banned BlackRock from participating in the Texas financial system because of its ESG policies that were hostile to the oil and gas industry. It cut them out [of] the multi-billion dollar public finance system in Texas. They’re losing money because of it,” the governor responded.

Yet, just a few months after this, when TXSE was announced, the governor’s tone was completely different.

“Texas Poised for Its Own Stock Exchange: Promising Less Red Tape Than NYSE or Nasdaq. A place where the only agenda is capitalism,” Abbott wrote on X.

Hegar concurred.

“With the Texas Stock Exchange headquarters in the works, backed by $120M from investors, it’s a strong signal that Texas remains welcoming to business. This move could attract more companies and jobs to the city,” he posted.

DX contacted both officials to ask what prompted their change of heart.

Abbott’s office relayed a Squawk Box interview wherein the governor answered a similar question on CNBC. The governor told the program that the ESG movement was “changing rapidly,” and he believed the TXSE would help companies avoid ESG.

Hegar’s office saw no connection between SB 13 divestment and TXSE. His spokesman offered a previous statement from Hegar that read in part: “I welcome [BlackRock’s] support for Texas, but this is not part of the criteria for identifying candidates for listing.”

The comptroller’s comment seems to indicate that while he accepted BlackRock’s investment in Texas, he did not believe that this particular project was connected to his SB 13 list.

The statement continued, “BlackRock will be removed from the list of companies boycotting oil and gas as defined by state statute when they stop boycotting oil and gas as defined by state statute. Please see our FAQ document for more information on the listing process and criteria.”

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

Why would any competent individual or institution invest $$$ there? Unless massive corruption/kickbacks/moneylaundering.  Wind "resources" offshore in the gulf are piss poor compared to land in the Plains across the US

[turbguy + 1,535]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Why would any competent individual or institution invest $$$ there? Unless massive corruption/kickbacks/moneylaundering.  Wind "resources" offshore in the gulf are piss poor compared to land in the Plains across the US

Looks to me that part of their plan is to provide another Non FERC-regulated DC tie between LA and TX, with a stop to pick up whatever wind they might catch.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

20 hours ago, turbguy said:

Looks to me that part of their plan is to provide another Non FERC-regulated DC tie between LA and TX, with a stop to pick up whatever wind they might catch.

Its all about OUTSIDE money wanting to build wind turbines and the biggest or nearly biggest hurdles is government regulation and ERCOT makes it EASY to add capacity.

Once again, it is GOVERNMENT in the way and why outside players have built al the wind turbines in Texas--> ease of installation, not because of amazing wind resources. 

BLACKROCK has all this CO2 religious mania money to spend by their members and they aren't completely stupid, so they will take ever crappier wind resources so they can interact with the EASY place where regulations have been slashed all the while technically not interact with TX where they got kicked out of due to their racist mysandrist BS. 

If it were about Wind resources, they would build off of North Carolina, N. California,, or off of Massachucets--> But no, their governments hate business and love their power more.  Welcome to reality. 

[turbguy + 1,535]

35 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Its all about OUTSIDE money wanting to build wind turbines and the biggest or nearly biggest hurdles is government regulation and ERCOT makes it EASY to add capacity.

Once again, it is GOVERNMENT in the way and why outside players have built al the wind turbines in Texas--> ease of installation, not because of amazing wind resources. 

BLACKROCK has all this CO2 religious mania money to spend by their members and they aren't completely stupid, so they will take ever crappier wind resources so they can interact with the EASY place where regulations have been slashed all the while technically not interact with TX where they got kicked out of due to their racist mysandrist BS. 

If it were about Wind resources, they would build off of North Carolina, N. California,, or off of Massachucets--> But no, their governments hate business and love their power more.  Welcome to reality. 

I still have an inclination that you give the government way too much credit. 

I would expect ERCOT to "make it easy"  to add capacity.  They can use any additional generation they can get. Particularly if they get more bidders into their market!

Add another DC tie?

ICING ON THE CAKE!

Edited July 14 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I still have an inclination that you give the government way too much credit. 

I would expect ERCOT to "make it easy"  to add capacity.  They can use any additional generation they can get. Particularly if they get more bidders into their market!

Add another DC tie?

ICING ON THE CAKE!

How Delulu are you?  They have ~effectively free NG as costs relative to everyone else other than ~Iran/Russia/Qatar... No, ERCOT does not "need" more DC connectors(It has less than 1GW of DC ties, and their capacity is ~80GW).  It is everyone else who now needs those DC connectors(OK/KS/AR).   Before shale revolution, yes, after--> No.

[turbguy + 1,535]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

How Delulu are you?  They have ~effectively free NG as costs relative to everyone else other than ~Iran/Russia/Qatar... No, ERCOT does not "need" more DC connectors(It has less than 1GW of DC ties, and their capacity is ~80GW).  It is everyone else who now needs those DC connectors(OK/KS/AR).   Before shale revolution, yes, after--> No.

Yup! DC does go both ways. 

If TX's electrons are cheap as you seem to indicate, then YES, the SWPP can buy it, instead. 

The grids can always make use of more capacity and flexibility.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

26 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Yup! DC does go both ways. 

If TX's electrons are cheap as you seem to indicate, then YES, the SWPP can buy it, instead. 

The grids can always make use of more capacity and flexibility.

 

No reason for wind turbines in a crappy resource zone.  This is all about BlackRock trying to get back into TX market after being kicked in the balls for being perverts. 

[turbguy + 1,535]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No reason for wind turbines in a crappy resource zone.  This is all about BlackRock trying to get back into TX market after being kicked in the balls for being perverts. 

The zone doesn't appear "crappy" to me.  YMMV.

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/wtk-10m-2017-01.jpg

It appears that it's a better wind resource area than most of Kansas, Nebraska, and even Texas.

Edited July 15 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,535]

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Once again, it is GOVERNMENT in the way and why outside players have built al the wind turbines in Texas--> ease of installation, not because of amazing wind resources.

Seems to me that Texas' Land Wind Resource does very well, predictable, and also seems to compliment solar generation.  The wind output is equivalent to about 10 large nuc units, even at minimum times, not counting times of force majeure.  

https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards/combinedwindandsolar

Edited July 15 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

36 minutes ago, turbguy said:

The zone doesn't appear "crappy" to me.  YMMV.

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/wtk-10m-2017-01.jpg

It appears that it's a better wind resource area than most of Kansas, Nebraska, and even Texas.

That is garbage... 10m above surface, I mean who cares unless you are landing an aircraft...  NREL also has others made over 20 years ago and assumed VERY short wind turbines(I believe they used 125ft)

But here is up to date using actual data(where it has data), not NREL computer model

Here, https://globalwindatlas.info/en

click mean power at 100m.  Most turbines hub is at 120m in USA currently(2016) and climbing. 

If they REALLY want to build wind  turbines over water: The Great Lakes are a PERFECT spot, nice and shallow, no salt water.  Gulf SUCKS with less than HALF the power per swept area as Lake Michigan.  Beyond stupid.  Off Boston has 2.5X power of the Gulf.  Off Northern California has ~3X the power for SAME WIND TURBINE as the Gulf.  No one can be that dumb without ulterior motives

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

https://dallasexpress.com/state/tx-fishing-industry-under-threat-from-blackrock-wind-farm-project/

TX Fishing Industry Under Threat From BlackRock Wind Farm Project

Jul 27, 2024  Kellen McGovern Jones - Investigative Reporter  [See 'X' tweets in article]

The massive destruction wrought on Massachusettes’ Vineyard Wind project has raised new questions about the safety and prudence of a similar BlackRock-backed project planned off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas near Port Arthur.

Bonnie Brady of the Long Island Commercial Fisherman’s Association posted several pictures of broken and mangled offshore wind turbines from a recent storm to her X account on July 20. The images depict turbines with snapped blades hanging from their mounts. They also show large shards of metal and other debris washing ashore.

Brady directed her post to every East Coast governor and the major presidential contenders, save for Vice President Kamala Harris, who had not yet announced her presidential candidacy, warning of what could happen to the fishing industry.

“Stop the madness while you still can, because when the fiberglass lands on your shores you will (eventually) be out of the job. Ps we will never forget you threw US commercial fishing industries under the bus,” she wrote.

Her tweets were in response to a video posted by a Nantucket resident, Mary Chalke.

“It is time to shut [Vineyard Wind] down,” Chalke said before later adding, “It is a ticking time bomb.”

As she filmed her video, Chalke stood on the Nantucket shoreline, raising awareness about what she said were sheets of fiberglass that had been blown to shore from the wreckage of the wind farms. She noted that the beach had recently been reopened despite debris still in the air and water. She condemned the project she claims residents were originally told in 2019 was just “experimental.”

Chalke and Brady’s social media posts came just days after a federal court ordered ongoing construction at Vineyard Wind to halt over concerns about the damaged turbines.

This is not the only time questions have been raised about the sturdiness of offshore wind turbines.

A similar event happened in Denmark in 2022, and also when one offshore wind turbine caught fire in England, forcing an evacuation of its crew last year. This comes as expenses to build these energy-producing projects often rise to cost-prohibitive levels.

Yet mechanical fragility and expense concerns are compounded by wind turbines’ chemical dangers. Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances — better known as PFAS or “forever chemicals” — are reportedly present in many of the attachments added to turbines. Such chemicals were made infamous because of their potential health hazards to firemen.

BPAs and epichlorohydrin are present in the resin binding most wind turbine blades. A certain amount of these chemicals are shed through erosion every year. Some “33% of that eroded material is BPA, resulting in 45 pounds of PBAs released, into the environment, per turbine, per year,” the Douglas County Rural Preservation Association wrote.

However, American Clean Power, an association of wind and hydroelectric power producers disputes the danger of BPA presented by wind turbines.

Responding to alleged risks regarding BPA and erosion, the organization wrote, “Wind turbine blades’ protective coatings are non-toxic and contain negligible amounts of BPA, and the blades are specifically designed to have high resistance to weathering.”

Epichlorohydrin can poison water and have “detrimental effects on the liver, kidneys, central nervous system [of humans],” according to the EPA.

There are also risks to sea life. “[Epichlorohydrin] is moderately toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates,” the University of Hertfordshire wrote on its toxin reports page.

This poses dual risks to fishermen and their fish stocks. Port Arthur is Texas’s fourth biggest fishing port and the nearest port to offshore wind farm construction. Commercial fishing is an industry worth almost $250 million in Lone Star State and employs roughly 3,500 people.

Texas weather patterns suggest that damage to these planned turbines is inevitable. Texas has been hit by numerous hurricanes, including Hurricane Ike in 2008 and Hurricane Beryl weeks ago. Lake Charles, the nearest major Louisiana city, was infamously pummeled by Hurricane Laura in 2020.

In a foreboding sign for Texas fishermen, the Department of Interior granted Option M’s owners a bidding credit because of the corporation’s commitment to “establishing and contributing to a fisheries compensatory mitigation fund or contributing to an existing fund to mitigate potential negative impacts to commercial and for-hire recreational fisheries caused by offshore wind energy development in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Brady has been highlighting chemical concerns in recent weeks. She recently appeared before the Town of Nantucket Select Board and grilled Vineyard’s representatives over the chemicals used in the blades’ production. Brady asked, “How many pounds of resin are included in each blade?” and a variety of other questions that would indicate the toxic risks posed by turbine blades. So far, she has not received any answers.

Option M, the Port Arthur area wind farm, and its stalled Galveston-area sister project Option I are efforts pushed by the Biden administration, The Dallas Express previously reported. The administration has promoted the project as a jobs creator and part of a transition to “clean energy.” However, it is unclear how many jobs will come from Option M’s building process since many of the largest turbine manufacturers are not American.

Moreover, like Vineyard Wind, owned by the Danes, Option M is owned by RWE Offshore US Gulf LLC. The company’s largest backers are Qatar Holding (9.1%) and BlackRock (6.3%), according to its shareholder structure webpage.

The destruction of Vineyard Wind’s turbines highlights a struggling Climate 100+ agenda, an initiative by which BlackRock intended to pivot its investments away from fossil fuels toward alternative energy sources before the program was scaled back. While the news cycle is currently highlighting the issues with prominent forms of alternative power, such as offshore wind, the asset manager has struggled to fend off divestments from some of Texas’s largest sovereign wealth funds over concerns about how BlackRock’s left-wing environmental social and governance investment may be discriminating against Texas oil and gas producers, DX previously reported.