Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[My2Cents]

Oh come on Rick, tell us now, please, please.... we can't wait 'til January 4th... please, please, tell us now... please, please... what's the "big announcement ??" Come on, you can tell us, we won't tell anybody.

The Winner of the Snyder Township Slogan Contest will be announced on January 4th - at the Grand Opening of the Flatmeat Cafe.

...my apologies for stealing your thunder Rick.

.

[My2Cents]

Try this one Bill... if it's not the one let me know I may have others.
http://www.aviary.org/csrv/eaglePA.php

Thanks My2Cents I will check it out now...Take Care

#41 came right thru here not too long ago... sometimes you have to wait a little while for the track to come up after clicking on each bird and bringing up the map. I think this is updated on a weekly basis plus you can look back on the history of each path also.

WoW that certainly is a informational site. thanks so much for finding it for me My2Cents

OK... hope it helps.

[150thBucktailCo.I]

Try this one Bill... if it's not the one let me know I may have others.
http://www.aviary.org/csrv/eaglePA.php

Thanks My2Cents I will check it out now...Take Care

#41 came right thru here not too long ago... sometimes you have to wait a little while for the track to come up after clicking on each bird and bringing up the map. I think this is updated on a weekly basis plus you can look back on the history of each path also.

Boy, that is cool stuff. Thanks, 2 cents.

Looking at all the routes together for the Golden Eagles, what's really cool is how they all seem to use the same corridor when they get to PA and which happens to be right over or right near us.

[DonkeyHoagie]

Oh come on Rick, tell us now, please, please.... we can't wait 'til January 4th... please, please, tell us now... please, please... what's the "big announcement ??" Come on, you can tell us, we won't tell anybody.

The Winner of the Snyder Township Slogan Contest will be announced on January 4th - at the Grand Opening of the Flatmeat Cafe.

...my apologies for stealing your thunder Rick.

.

No. No.
January 4th marks the first time the account of Sir Donkey Hoagie, your humble servant, was suspended. It is a day Rick and family cherishes.
The occasion is marked with a breakfast of hoagies and pierogies, the re-telling of "The Night Before I Tossed Donkey Hoagie" and, finally, the dance around the "delete post" button.
A wonderful celebration it is!

[Rick]

Oh come on Rick, tell us now, please, please.... we can't wait 'til January 4th... please, please, tell us now... please, please... what's the "big announcement ??" Come on, you can tell us, we won't tell anybody.

The Winner of the Snyder Township Slogan Contest will be announced on January 4th - at the Grand Opening of the Flatmeat Cafe.

...my apologies for stealing your thunder Rick.

.

No. No.
January 4th marks the first time the account of Sir Donkey Hoagie, your humble servant, was suspended. It is a day Rick and family cherishes.
The occasion is marked with a breakfast of hoagies and pierogies, the re-telling of "The Night Before I Tossed Donkey Hoagie" and, finally, the dance around the "delete post" button.
A wonderful celebration it is!

:stick:

[no-it-all]

Anybody read the Hereald today? A certain councilman is doing an impression of a windmill.------"Wish----wash----wish---wash".. A few pages ago on this thread, and I will quote, " It will take a miracle for me not to vote "no" now". Pretty plain English to me. Todays' paper--"If they fix the noise problem that they are working on, and the people up there are happy, I can't think of anything in my way of a windfarm...." I guess they are right; there's always going to be plenty of wind out there to harness. Sad thing is, they effectively postponed a vote on this until the "new council " convenes in the new year and Bill Fink was a definate no. Handwriting is on the wall......it may be jibberish but I think we all understand it.

[Something to say]

hmm...does anyone know? Did they have the meeting at Joe's? And what came of it?

[George M.]

Wind power bills rising; It costs more to be green;
Regular Xcel customers will pay less as natural gas prices drop

December 13, 2007 by Gargi Chakrabarty in Rocky Mountain News

Xcel's voluntary wind power customers in Colorado will be hit with higher bills beginning next year.

But regular customers will benefit from lower electric bills, according to Xcel filings with regulators late Tuesday.

The utility says fully subscribed customers of WindSource will have to pay higher premiums - about $13 more per month compared with regular customers - because they aren't benefiting from declining natural gas prices enjoyed by regular customers. Fully subscribed customers get all their electricity from wind power.

Also, savings from wind power seen in past years, when wind farms were replacing old and costly natural gas-fired power plants, are declining as wind farms are replacing newer and more efficient power plants.

"Initially, wind was replacing the most inefficient natural gas plants, but as we go along and add more wind further down the line, we replace power from more efficient natural gas plants or possibly less-efficient coal plants," said Xcel pricing consultant Dan Ahrens. "So, the economic benefits get eaten up"

The new rates, if approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, will take effect Jan. 1. Spokeswoman Deborah Collette said the request could be considered at the commission's meeting on Dec. 19, during which "action may be taken"

New rates for fully subscribed WindSource customers will average $69.94 a month, up $7.22 from the current $62.72 a month.

New rates for regular residential customers will average $56.88 a month, 16 cents lower than the current $57.04. Those customers depend on Xcel's general system, which generates 59 percent electricity from coal, 35 percent from natural gas, and 3 percent each from hydro and wind.

Xcel's filing underscores the higher cost to customers if more wind power is added to the generation system, said Stan Lewandowski, general manager of Intermountain Rural Electric Association, the state's largest rural electric co-operative serving more than 130,000 customers.

Lewandowski has been a vocal critic of a Gov. Bill Ritter-backed proposal, passed by lawmakers this year, which requires Colorado utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources (sun, wind, plants and animal waste) by 2020 - double the goal of 10 percent by 2015 that was set by Amendment 37, which voters passed in November 2004.

Rural electric co-ops would have to get at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Customers eventually would pay the cost incurred by utilities to comply with the standards.

"I think you got two problems with wind," Lewandowski said. "When you have over 10 percent (of your total power from wind), the cost gets too much and you have problems with reliability"

However, wind industry advocates said the current lower price of coal and natural gas does not reflect their true price. Also, those fuels likely will pay a carbon tax in the near future that would make them a more expensive source of power generation compared to wind, a freely available source.

Since the passage of renewable-energy standards by Colorado lawmakers, the wind industry has created thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of direct and indirect jobs, said Craig Cox of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a Denver-based group that lobbies for the wind industry.

A study by the group estimates savings of $251 million to Xcel customers from wind energy over the next 20 years.

"We believe a carbon tax (on fossil fuels) is inevitable," said Mike Mike Mendelsohn, a senior policy analyst with Western Resource Advocates.

"Once a carbon tax is incorporated in the price of electricity, then Xcel's planned portfolio of renewable resources and energy conservation programs will be less expensive than an alternative portfolio of greater reliance on traditional resources such as coal and natural gas"

Paying a price for renewable energy

* Xcel customers who opt to get all of their energy from wind power likely will get hit with higher bills next year. The breakdown:

$69.94 will be the average Xcel Windsource customer bill beginning Jan. 1.*

$62.72 is the current average bill for Windsource customers.

$56.88 will be the average Xcel residential customer bill beginning Jan. 1.*

$57.04 is the current average bill a regular residential customer pays.

Web link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2 ... lls-rising

[sandstone]

Anybody read the Hereald today? A certain councilman is doing an impression of a windmill.------"Wish----wash----wish---wash".. A few pages ago on this thread, and I will quote, " It will take a miracle for me not to vote "no" now". Pretty plain English to me. Todays' paper--"If they fix the noise problem that they are working on, and the people up there are happy, I can't think of anything in my way of a windfarm...." I guess they are right; there's always going to be plenty of wind out there to harness. Sad thing is, they effectively postponed a vote on this until the "new council " convenes in the new year and Bill Fink was a definate no. Handwriting is on the wall......it may be jibberish but I think we all understand it.

No real contradiction here on the part of Council VP Latchford, because, as long as the turbine blades and mast are made of physical matter, they will create noise. One component is the "swish-swish" (high frequency) created by the blade moving through the air, the other is the "thump-thump" (low frequency) created by the blade compressing air between itself and the mast. Remember that the blade is ~140' long, 8' wide, and 4' thick.

See the conclusions of the UK Noise Association
http://www.windaction.org/documents/4281

Overall Conclusions
1. Wind Farm noise, in common with noise generally, affects different people in different ways, but the evidence suggests there is rarely a problem for people living more than 1-1.5 miles from a turbine.
2. For many people living relatively close to turbines, the noise does not present a problem. For those who are annoyed by the noise, it is overwhelmingly the “swish, swish, swish” of the turbines which troubles them.
3. For people who are not able to shut out the noise, the problem can be exacerbated by the rotating blades and the dancing shadows of turbines. This can mean that the noise from turbines can be much more intrusive that other noises of a similar decibel level.
4. For some people the impact of turbines can be overwhelming.
5. The noise can be a particular problem in rural areas where background noise levels are low.
6. The infrasound content of wind turbine noise is too low to be heard by most people.
7. At times, low-frequency will form an audible, but not major part, of the “swish” sound of the turbines and can, for people sensitive to low-frequency noise, create additional problems. But the low-frequency content of wind turbine noise is no greater than the low-frequency component found in
several other noise sources and can only usually be heard down wind of a turbine when there is a fair bit of turbulence.
8. However, low-frequency may be underestimated because of the persistent use of ‘A’ weighting in measuring the noise, rather taking ‘C’ weighted measurements.
9. Research by medical doctors has unearthed persistent complaints from people saying they not only hear the noise from wind turbines, but can “feel” disturbance

Also check out Dr. Pierpont's Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise in which she states that the noise from utility-scale wind turbines can produce health issues for people living within 1.5 miles of the turbines. http://www.windaction.org/documents/12760

Another interesting read is Public Health and Noise Exposure: The Importance of Low Frequency Noise
http://www.windaction.org/documents/13107

"Noise exposure is known to cause hearing loss and a variety of disturbances, such as annoyance, hypertension and loss of sleep. It is generally accepted that these situations are caused by the acoustical events processed by the auditory system. However, there are acoustical events that are not necessarily processed by the auditory system, but that nevertheless cause harm. Infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN, <500Hz) are acoustical phenomena that can impact the human body causing irreversible organic damage to the organism, but that do not cause classical hearing impairment. Acoustical environments are normally composed of all types of acoustical events: those that are processed by the auditory system, and those that are not. It is generally assumed that acoustical phenomena not captured by the human auditory system are not harmful. This is reflected by current noise assessment procedures that merely require the quantification of the acoustical phenomena that are audible to human hearing (hence the dBA unit). Thus, studies investigating the effects of noise exposure on public health that do not take into account the entire spectrum of acoustical energy are misleading and may, in fact, be scientifically unsound. "

To understand the various components of wind turbine noise and the physical characteristics and conditions that affect such noise and its perception, read van den Berg's pioneering studies:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:WaZ ... cd=5&gl=us

NEW RESEARCH EXPLAINS WIND TURBINE NOISE PROBLEMS
In a major new article published this month in the Journal of Sound and Vibration,
G. P. Van den Berg, a physicist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands,
believes that he has at last explained the mystery of why modern onshore wind turbines can cause noise problems for
residents at distances of a mile or more.
For his article, “Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound” (Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 277 (2004), 955–970), Van den Berg measured sound around the Rhede wind-farm (an
installation of 17 turbines), on the Dutch/German border. “Residents living 500 m and more from
the park have reacted strongly to the noise; (and) residents up to 1900m distance expressed
annoyance” particularly at night. Yet, conventional wind industry calculations have assumed that
turbines would present no noise problem over 500m.
After extensive measurements, Van den Berg discovered that the methods used by wind turbine
developers, in the UK and elsewhere, to predict noise are seriously flawed because of their
assumption that wind speeds measured at a height of 10 metres are representative of wind speed
at the greater heights of modern turbines (often 100 metres and above).
The importance of this analysis is further exacerbated when measured at night, when though wind
speeds may fall at ground level (to near zero), they remain fast enough at 60 metres (and above)
to turn the turbine blades. In fact, his measurements show, wind speeds at night are up to 2.6
times higher than expected.
Even in the day background noise is not good at covering the rhythmical thumping caused by the
blade as it passes the tower. Consequently, against expectations, the turbines were turning at night
and the noise propagating down into an area at ground level where this was no background noise
to mask it, and consequently residents were experiencing sound levels 15dB higher than
expected. Though turbines were making as much noise as normal, it was carrying much further,
and especially at night when it was particularly troublesome. Fascinatingly, Van den Berg has
found that the error is smallest within 400m of the turbine but is much greater at distances up to a
mile away.
Van den Berg concludes, “The number and severity of noise complaints near the wind park are at
least in part explained by the two main findings of this study; actual sound levels are considerably
higher than predicted, and wind turbines can produce sound with an impulsive character.”
“The relatively high wind speeds at turbine hub height at night also have a distinct advantage; the
electric power output is higher than predicted and benefits the operator of the wind turbine.”
Van den Berg also believes that infrasound is very probably a significant feature in the audible
noise problem.

He has pointed out that although inaudible, the low blade passing of wind
turbine blades, frequency modulates clearly audible higher frequency sounds and thus creates
periodic sound (with the effect strengthened at night). Further he observes that groups of several
turbines can interact to amplify this effect. The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) has
commissioned G. P. van den Berg to produce further research.
CEO Campbell Dunford, commented, “As Van den Berg has said, we are all very much in favour
of renewable energy, but it is extremely important that the truth about any turbine noise problems
is made public. Many developers are currently proposing putting substantial groups of large
turbines within 500m of residential areas. Experiences across Europe suggest that there are
problems with turbine noise, and Van den Berg’s recent work offers some possible explanations.
This is important and should be investigated further as a matter of urgency.”

At the 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency, Noise and Vibration and its Control (Maastricht,
August 2004)


However, we have no research describing the effects of windplant noise on wildlife.

[Bill Latchford]

In as much as the wildlife factor is important I put a lot of weight on the Human suffering factor. People might be saying that it is just a minor inconvenience, but it most certainly is a factor when you can't sleep at night and your Job suffers, your Family suffers, and your Friends suffer, all while you know it is a sound that you can't get out of your head. Like I said I could not imagine that type of interference in my life. Isn't life hard enough without a neighbor or a Municipality putting a noisy power plant in your neighborhood. The people in Snyder Township I believe will be the most effected...I am going up Decker Hollow Road in a minute to look around, since the weather may hamper my efforts tomorrow a bit. Take Care all....Great information George M. and SandStone....Thank You

[no-it-all]

That wasn't my point! GAMESA satisfied the one guys up there monetarily. If they find a "fix" for the noise complaints up there, the way I read it, you are ok with voting yes. Am I right or wrong?

[salaman]

The noise problem can not be "fixed". As sandstone pointed out the air is compressed every time the blade passes the mast. This is totally unavoidable. The only solution is to have meaningful setbacks from homes and other places where people may be. Those setbacks should be at least 1.5 miles. Both the U.K. and France have setbacks of at least one mile.

ABSTRACTS
Second International Meeting
on
Wind Turbine Noise
Lyon France September 20 – 21 2007

In-Home Wind Turbine Noise Is Conducive to Vibroacoustic Disease
Mariana Alves-Pereira
ERISA-Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal
Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco
Center for Human Performance, Alverca, Portugal
(vibroacoustic.disease@gmail.com)
Introduction. This team has been systematically studying the effects of infrasound
and low frequency noise (ILFN, <500 Hz) in both human and animal models since
1980. Recently, yet another source of ILFN has appeared: wind turbines (WT). Like
many other ILFN-generating devices, WT can greatly benefit humankind if, and only
if, responsible and intelligent measures are taken for their implementation.
Vibroacoustic disease (VAD) is the pathology that is acquired with repeated
exposures to ILFN environments (occupational, residential or recreational). This can
be considered a scientific fact because there are 27 years of valid and robust
scientific data supporting this assertion.
Goal. To evaluate if ILFN levels obtained in a home near WT are conducive to VAD.
Methodology. Case 1: documented in 2004, in-home ILFN levels generated by a port
grain terminal, 2 adults and a 10-year-old child diagnosed with VAD. Case 2: isolated
farm in agricultural area, four 2MW WT that began operation in Nov 2006, located
between 300 m and 700 m from the residential building, 3 adults and 2 children (8
and 12-years-old). ILFN levels of Case 2 were compared to those in Case 1. In both,
ILFN was assessed in 1/3 octave bands, without A-weighting, (i.e. in dB Linear). In
Case 1, the lower limiting frequency was 6.3 Hz, while in Case 2, it was 1 Hz.
Results. ILFN levels in the home of Case 2 were higher than those obtained in the
home of Case 1.
Discussion. ILFN levels contaminating the home of Case 2 are amply sufficient to
cause VAD. This family has already received standard diagnostic tests to monitor
clinical evolution of VAD. Safe distances from residences have not yet been
scientifically established, despite statements by other authors claiming to possess this
knowledge. Acceptance, as fact, of statements or assertions not supported by any
type of valid scientific data, defeats all principles on which true scientific endeavor is
founded. Thus, widespread statements claiming no harm is caused by in-home ILFN
produced by WT are fallacies that cannot, in good conscience, continue to be
perpetuated. In-home ILFN generated by WT can lead to severe health problems,
specifically, VAD. Therefore, real and efficient zoning for WT must be scientifically
determined, and quickly adopted, in order to competently and responsibly protect
Public Health.

Low Frequency Noise from Wind Turbines
Malcolm Hayes. Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd, Lodge Park, Tre'r-ddol
Machynlleth. POWYS, Wales
The completion of the study sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry into
the measurement of low frequency noise at three wind farms in the UK has provided
physical evidence of the levels of low frequency and infrasound experienced at
dwellings neighbouring wind farms in the UK. The three wind farms were identified on
the basis of low frequency noise complaints. The levels of infrasound and low
frequency noise were found to fall below the DEFRA Night-time Low Frequency Noise
Criteria and were typically at or below the median threshold of audibility in quiet.
Additional measurements at another wind farm in the UK confirm that the levels found
at the three original wind farms are typical of the levels associated with modern wind
farms in the UK. However, residual noise, at frequencies associated with the trailing
edge noise of the wind turbines, was audible within the dwellings. Consideration is
also given to the potential effects of the measured infrasound and low frequency
sound levels with regard to the alleged potential occurrence of Vibro-acoustic
disease.

Evaluating the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise for
environmental assessments
Dr. D.S. Michaud, Dr. S.E. Keith
Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A1C1
Email: dmichaud@hc-sc.gc.ca
skeith@hc-sc.gc.ca
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) requires certain projects with
federal government triggers to undergo an environmental assessment (EA) before
receiving federal government approval. The intent is to ensure that actions are taken
to promote sustainable development and to ensure that projects do not cause
significant adverse environmental effects. Environmental effects may include health
effects from project related noise. To help the responsible authorities for an EA make
this determination, they may request specialist information and knowledge from
Health Canada or other specialists, as prescribed under CEAA. For wind turbine
projects, Health Canada provides advice based on the evaluated project-related
changes in high annoyance, per ISO 1996-1 and considers a 6.5% increase in high
annoyance to correspond to a severe noise impact. The severity assessment is
based on US Federal Transit Administration noise impact criteria. In quiet rural
settings, a severe noise impact for wind turbines can correspond to sound levels as
low as 45 dBA. This accounts for the finding that in quiet rural areas there may be a
greater expectation for and value placed on “peace and quiet” equivalent to up to 10
dB. A constant sound level less than 45dBA measured outdoors also corresponds to
the WHO threshold level for sleep disturbance when windows are partially opened.
Furthermore, if sound levels at the receptor are kept below 45dBA, the ANSI S12.2
rattle criterion will not be exceeded in the 63 Hz octave band. Turbine noise is
evaluated at the wind speed that produces the highest noise from the turbine, and
background noise is evaluated in calm winds. This allows for sheltering by
obstructions or wind speed gradients related to stable atmospheric conditions. Wind
turbine construction noise is assessed in terms of whether widespread complaints
may be expected from its normalized day-night sound level, based on the EPA
“Levels” document.

[George M.]

In a recent interview Bill Latchford is quoted as saying:

One council member was worried about the vibrations of these wind mills. These things sit on a 50 foot by 10 foot deep base, and I think that would absorb any type of vibration.

However, research shows your assumption to be incorrect - i.e., all wind turbine vibrations are not absorbed by the concrete base. In fact, the underground vibrations caused by huge wind turbines have been shown to propagate for over 11 miles (18 km) in research conducted by independent scientists - in the US and in Europe.

Here's the opening few sentences of a research report (2000) which examined underground vibrations emitted by the Stateline wind turbine project in eastern Oregon and Washington -

"Measurements of ground vibration were made at 10 sites around the Stateline Wind Project. The 3-bladed turbines produce seismic peaks mainly at multiples of 3 times their rotation frequency. The strongest peak (4.3 Hz) was detected at a site about 18 km from Stateline where it reached 0.7 nm/sqrt(Hz) of ground motion.

You may also want to check out the report's graphs and photos of the turbines - which are 250 foot tall machines - via the following weblink: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/T020104-00.pdf

More recently, in 2005 researchers in the United Kingdom documented that underground vibrations from newer and much larger wind turbine designs also are being propagated at great distances. Their research was the basis for the British Ministry of Defense's decision that industrial wind turbines should not be built within 11 miles (17.5 km) of the recording instrument locations which they rely on to monitor compliance with the international nuclear test ban treaty - see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/wind_farms_mod.

If underground vibrations are detected at over 10 miles away from wind turbines, imagine how strong the vibration energy must be within a few hundred yards of these machines... FYI, the turbines on Ice Mountain likely would be spaced 250 to 400 yards apart.

[Ice Man]

In a recent interview Bill Latchford is quoted as saying:

One council member was worried about the vibrations of these wind mills. These things sit on a 50 foot by 10 foot deep base, and I think that would absorb any type of vibration.

However, research shows your assumption to be incorrect - i.e., all wind turbine vibrations are not absorbed by the concrete base. In fact, the underground vibrations caused by huge wind turbines have been shown to propagate for over 11 miles (18 km) in research conducted by independent scientists - in the US and in Europe.

Here's the opening few sentences of a research report (2000) which examined underground vibrations emitted by the Stateline wind turbine project in eastern Oregon and Washington -

"Measurements of ground vibration were made at 10 sites around the Stateline Wind Project. The 3-bladed turbines produce seismic peaks mainly at multiples of 3 times their rotation frequency. The strongest peak (4.3 Hz) was detected at a site about 18 km from Stateline where it reached 0.7 nm/sqrt(Hz) of ground motion.

You may also want to check out the report's graphs and photos of the turbines - which are 250 foot tall machines - via the following weblink: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/T020104-00.pdf

More recently, in 2005 researchers in the United Kingdom documented that underground vibrations from newer and much larger wind turbine designs also are being propagated at great distances. Their research was the basis for the British Ministry of Defense's decision that industrial wind turbines should not be built within 11 miles (17.5 km) of the recording instrument locations which they rely on to monitor compliance with the international nuclear test ban treaty - see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/wind_farms_mod.

If underground vibrations are detected at over 10 miles away from wind turbines, imagine how strong the vibration energy must be within a few hundred yards of these machines... FYI, the turbines on Ice Mountain likely would be spaced 250 to 400 yards apart.

Athough a windplant on Ice Mountain would cause human harm and suffering, due to its proximity to homes and hunting camps, many industrial windfarms are built far from residences. Has any research been done regarding the effects of turbine noise and vibration on wildlife?

Some of you might ridicule me for this , but one of my favorite animals is the timber rattlesnake and I enjoy looking for and finding them at the basking sites and hibernacula. They're sensitive to vibrations and the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, the Chestnut Flats Wind Farm (being built at Horseshoe Curve - 30 turbines) and the proposed Ice Mt Wind Farm are in areas of healthy timber rattlesnake populations.

[Ice Man]

That wasn't my point! GAMESA satisfied the one guys up there monetarily. If they find a "fix" for the noise complaints up there, the way I read it, you are ok with voting yes. Am I right or wrong?

Did you know that the guy (Jim Davis) onto whose land the Gamesa turbine blade was thrown (from a rotating turbine!) was compensated with a $200 gift certificate to Red Lobster signed "from Ellen (Lutz) and Terry (Nicol)"?