Tag: Oklahoma

Oklahoma Meteor Strike Redated 100 Million Years Younger — Now Linked to Major Devonian Extinction

Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin have determined that the Ames impact structure in Oklahoma formed about 370 million years ago (Late Devonian), nearly 100 million years later than the previous estimate of around 467 million years ago (Ordovician).

The Frasnian- Famennian (F- F) mass extinction, also known as the Upper Kellwasser event (or part of the broader Kellwasser Crisis), was one of the “Big Five” Phanerozoic mass extinctions. It occurred at the boundary between the Frasnian and Famennian stages of the Late Devonian Period, approximately 372 million years ago.

A dramatic scene depicting a massive comet crashing into a volcanic landscape, causing a fiery explosion and dark ash clouds against a twilight sky, surrounded by palm trees and a river.
AI generated by Grok

Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin have determined that the Ames impact structure in Oklahoma formed about 370 million years ago (Late Devonian), nearly 100 million years later than the previous estimate of around 467 million years ago (Ordovician).

The buried crater (roughly 14- 16 km in diameter) lies beneath the small town of Ames in northwest Oklahoma (Major County). It is a significant oil and gas reservoir because the impact fractured the rock, creating traps for hydrocarbons.

It was previously linked to the Ordovician Meteor Event (a proposed cluster of impacts around 467- 468 million years ago, possibly related to a fragmented L- chondrite asteroid and even a temporary debris ring around Earth).

That age rested mainly on biostratigraphy: conodont teeth (from ancient eel- like creatures) found in the crater fill that date to the Ordovician. Researchers now conclude those fossils were likely already millions of years old and were simply reworked and preserved during the impact.

The new age comes from U- Pb dating of zircon crystals in impact- affected granites/granodiorite from the site. Multiple techniques (secondary ion mass spectrometry and laser ablation: ICP -MS) consistently yielded a youngest weighted mean age of about 369.7 ± 5.9 Ma.

Imaging (cathodoluminescence and electron backscattered diffraction, including work with NASA) confirmed impact- related textures in some zircons, such as recrystallization features from shock. The host rock itself is much older (Mesoproterozoic, ~1.4 billion years). Argon dating of plagioclase reflected later thermal overprinting tied to burial and hydrocarbon maturation rather than the impact itself.

The revised timing places the Ames impact near the Frasnian- Famennian (Upper Kellwasser) mass extinction boundary (~372 million years ago), a major marine extinction event.

This removes it from the Ordovician Meteor Event and raises questions about whether impacts contributed to the Late Devonian die- off (alongside other potential drivers such as volcanism or environmental changes).

Lead author Elizabeth Catlos (UT Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences) noted that accurate timelines help distinguish extraterrestrial vs. terrestrial causes of major events. Co- author Danny Stockli (Jackson School dean) highlighted zircon’s value for both precise dating and recording impact shock.

The peer- reviewed study by Catlos and colleagues appeared in Meteoritics & Planetary Science (published online around July/September 2026). It builds on earlier sample collection and analysis by the late graduate student Andrew Parisi, with additional contributions from other UT researchers.

In short, improved radiometric dating of impact- shocked zircons has shifted a key North American crater’s place in geologic history and its potential links to mass extinctions.

Geological map showing the layers of Arbuckle dolomite and breccias, with annotations detailing various types of rock formations and their distributions, including shaded areas for different geological features.
A geological map noting the types of rock that make up the Ames impact structure. The locations of oil and gas wells are noted with arrows. Credit: Catlos et al

The Ordovician Meteor Event (OME), also called the Ordovician meteorite event or Great Ordovician Meteorite Shower, was a prolonged period of dramatically elevated meteorite influx to Earth during the Middle Ordovician, beginning around 467.5 ± 0.28 million years ago (or ~465.8- 468 Ma in some calibrations) and lasting roughly 40 million years.

It is widely attributed to the catastrophic breakup of a large L- chondrite parent body (roughly 100- 150 km in diameter) in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This collision scattered fragments into Earth-crossing orbits.

Supporting evidence includes:

  • Shock ages in many modern L- chondrite meteorites (about one- third of meteorites that fall to Earth today are L chondrites linked to this event).
  • Abundant fossil L-chondrite meteorites (up to ~20 cm across) preserved in Middle Ordovician limestone, notably at Thorsberg Quarry (Kinnekulle), Sweden.
  • Elevated concentrations of ordinary chondritic chromite grains in sedimentary rocks of this age across multiple continents (Sweden, Russia, China, etc.).

A 2024 study noted that many associated craters formed within ~30° of the paleo- equator. This distribution is inconsistent with a random asteroid- belt source and has led to the hypothesis that a large asteroid may have passed within Earth’s Roche limit, broken apart, and temporarily formed a debris ring; material from the ring then deorbited and produced the observed impacts. Ring shading has even been speculated as a possible contributor to later Ordovician cooling (Hirnantian glaciation), though this remains debated.

The flux of dust, micrometeorites, and larger meteorites was estimated at ~100 times higher than today, with a corresponding increase in the rate of larger impacts.

This is recorded in:

  • Fossil meteorites and chromite spikes in marine sediments.
  • An excess of impact craters dated to roughly 470- 440 Ma (an order- of- magnitude higher density than expected in well- preserved regions such as parts of North America and Scandinavia).

Several structures have been linked (with varying confidence) to the OME, including:

  • Decorah (Iowa, USA)
  • Rock Elm (Wisconsin, USA)
  • Slate Islands (Ontario, Canada)
  • Crooked Creek (Missouri, USA)
  • Others in North America, Europe, and elsewhere

(Note: The Ames structure in Oklahoma was previously included on biostratigraphic grounds but was recently redated to ~370 Ma and removed from the OME.)

Some researchers have proposed that the influx of dust and impacts may have contributed to cooling that helped trigger or coincide with the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE), a major radiation of marine life. However, high- resolution dating studies have questioned a direct causal link, showing that the main meteorite bombardment post- dates the onset of cooling and the start of diversification in some records. The event is not associated with a major mass extinction.

In summary, the Ordovician Meteor Event represents the largest documented asteroid disruption and subsequent Earth- impact shower of the past ~3 billion years, leaving a clear geochemical, sedimentological, and cratering signature in the Middle- Late Ordovician record.

Map showing various impact sites in North America, indicating their impact diameters with different sized black circles. Includes locations in Canada and the United States, labeled with names of places like Tunnunik, Carswell, and Alamo.
A map of upper North America shows the approximate area and location of impact structures from about 486-360 million years ago. Credit: Catlos et al

The Frasnian- Famennian (F- F) mass extinction, also known as the Upper Kellwasser event (or part of the broader Kellwasser Crisis), was one of the “Big Five” Phanerozoic mass extinctions. It occurred at the boundary between the Frasnian and Famennian stages of the Late Devonian Period, approximately 372 million years ago.

Precise numerical ages place the F- F boundary around 371.87 ± 0.11 Ma (or constrained to roughly 371.8-372.4 Ma in various high- resolution studies), based on U- Pb dating of bentonite ash beds combined with cyclostratigraphy.

The crisis consists of two distinct pulses of environmental stress and extinction, recorded as widespread organic- rich black shales and limestones (the Kellwasser horizons, named after exposures in the Harz Mountains, Germany):

  • Lower Kellwasser Event (late Frasnian, early Late rhenana Zone): lasting roughly 90 kyr.
  • Upper Kellwasser Event (latest Frasnian, Late linguiformis Zone, coinciding with the F- F boundary): lasting roughly 110 kyr and generally more severe and widespread.

These were separated by a few hundred thousand years (estimates ~350- 800 kyr). The Upper Kellwasser is the main extinction pulse associated with the stage boundary.

Key features include:

  • Widespread marine anoxia/euxinia (oxygen- depleted to sulfide- rich bottom waters), expanding even into shallow- water and reef settings during the Upper Kellwasser.
  • Positive carbon- isotope (δ¹³C) excursions reflecting changes in the global carbon cycle.
  • Sea-level fluctuations (often transgressive pulses followed by regression).
  • Possible short- term climatic cooling or warming pulses, with evidence for elevated CO₂ in some records and glacio- eustatic sea- level falls in others.

No single cause is universally accepted; the crisis was likely multi- factorial and stepwise. Leading hypotheses include:

  • Oceanic anoxia driven by eutrophication, climate change, or changes in ocean circulation (widely supported by the black- shale record).
  • Volcanism, particularly activity linked to large igneous provinces (e.g., Viluy Traps) or other magmatic pulses, evidenced by mercury anomalies.
  • Climate shifts (cooling or greenhouse spikes related to forest expansion, weathering, or volcanism).
  • Possible contributions from sea- level change, nutrient runoff from expanding terrestrial vegetation, or tectonic factors.
  • Extraterrestrial impacts have been suggested (e.g., Siljan crater), but high- precision dating generally shows they do not precisely coincide with the main extinction pulses and are not considered primary drivers.

The Upper Kellwasser anoxia appears more of an epicontinental (shallow- sea) phenomenon in many regions rather than a fully open- ocean event.

Recovery was slow in many ecosystems, especially reefs. A second major Devonian crisis (the Hangenberg event) occurred ~13 million years later near the Devonian- Carboniferous boundary.

In the context of recent research (such as the redating of the Ames impact structure in Oklahoma to ~370 Ma), the F- F extinction timing has prompted renewed discussion of whether impacts played any supporting role alongside terrestrial drivers, though anoxia and climate remain the dominant explanations.

The Ames impact structure, Oklahoma: New radioisotopic constraints and implications for North American impact chronology

The Ames impact structure in Oklahoma was long thought to have formed during the Ordovician Meteor Event, based on conodont biostratigraphy of its crater fill.

New U- Pb zircon dates from the impact-melt portion (using secondary ion mass spectrometry and laser ablation, inductively coupled plasma, mass spectrometry; n = 37 spots) yield:

  • A Mesoproterozoic emplacement age for the impacted granodiorite of 1401.2 ± 8.1 Ma (±2σ, upper Concordia intercept).
  • A weighted mean age from the youngest zircon dates of 369.7 ± 5.9 Ma (n = 10/11; MSWD = 0.71; p(χ²) = 0.7).

Cathodoluminescence and electron backscattered diffraction imaging show that most zircons (including the youngest Devonian- age grains) retain primary oscillatory zoning and lack deformation.

Two grains, however, display impact- related textures: regions of low- angle grain boundaries within microcracks and discrete arrays of granular zircon that crosscut oscillatory growth zoning.

Plagioclase ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar analyses (n = 6 samples) give Late Carboniferous (~310.5 Ma) and Permian (~250.5 Ma) approximate total- fusion dates. These overlap the timing of heating and hydrocarbon maturation in the crater, indicating the argon system records post-impact thermal overprinting rather than the impact itself.

Based on the youngest zircon dates, the Ames structure is interpreted as Late Devonian and potentially linked to activity near the Frasnian- Famennian boundary, contemporaneous with other North American impacts.

Main conclusions from the paper

  • Biostratigraphic (conodont) evidence previously suggested a late Ordovician (Chatfieldian) age tied to the Ordovician Meteor Event. The new zircon data instead support a minimum age of ~370 Ma.
  • This places Ames near the Frasnian- Famennian (Upper Kellwasser) mass extinction (~372 Ma), raising the possibility of a contribution from bolide impacts to that event.
  • The discrepancy between radioisotopic and biostratigraphic ages illustrates ongoing challenges in impact geochronology. The authors emphasize the need for additional material suitable for modern techniques and openness to alternative age hypotheses.
  • Supporting data (geochronology and microstructural datasets) are available via the Texas Data Repository (DOI: 10.18738/T8/G5UENJ).

The full text is behind a Wiley paywall, but the abstract and extensive excerpts (including tables of zircon dates, petrographic descriptions, and discussion of microstructures such as planar deformation features) are publicly summarized in the sources above. The UT Austin Jackson School press release provides additional accessible context on the broader implications.

Published: Meteoritics & Planetary Science (first published 7 July 2026)

DOI: 10.1111/maps.70191

Provided: University of Texas at Austin

Authors: Elizabeth J. Catlos, Andrew F. Parisi, Michael E. Brookfield, Timmons Erickson, Sean P.S. Gulick, Axel K. Schmitt, Daniel F. Stockli, Daniel P. Miggins, Ben Ruchte, Mark Cloos

Abstract

The Ames impact structure (Oklahoma) is thought to have formed during the Ordovician Meteor Event, based on conodont biostratigraphy of its crater fill. Here, U–Pb zircon dates from its impact-melt portion, conducted using secondary ion mass spectrometry and laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (n = 37 spots), yield a Mesoproterozoic emplacement age for the impacted granodiorite (1401.2 ± 8.1 Ma, ±2σ, upper Concordia intercept). However, the youngest zircon dates define a weighted mean age of 369.7 ± 5.9 Ma (n = 10/11), with MSWD = 0.71 and p(χ2) = 0.7. Cathodoluminescence and electron backscattered diffraction images reveal that most zircons, including the youngest Devonian-age grains, show primary oscillatory zoning and lack deformation. However, two have impact-related textures, including regions of low-angle grain boundaries within microcracks and discrete arrays of granular zircon crosscutting oscillatory growth zoning. Plagioclase (n = 6 samples, 40Ar/39Ar) yields Late Carboniferous (~310.5 Ma) and Permian (~250.5 Ma) approximate total fusion dates that overlap the timing of heating and hydrocarbon maturation in the crater, suggesting the argon system records postimpact thermal overprinting. Based on the youngest zircon dates, the Ames impact structure may record activity near the Frasnian–Famennian boundary, contemporaneous with other North American impacts.

Halt the wind turbine onslaught in Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s windswept plains have long symbolized the state’s rugged independence, but a new storm is brewing — not from the skies but from corporate boardrooms.

As massive wind developments encroach on eastern Oklahoma, residents in Lincoln, Craig and Nowata counties are rising up, demanding a stop to these industrial behemoths that scar landscapes and increase the electric bills.

From CFACT

By Frank Lasee

Oklahoma’s windswept plains have long symbolized the state’s rugged independence, but a new storm is brewing — not from the skies but from corporate boardrooms. 

As massive wind developments encroach on eastern Oklahoma, residents in Lincoln, Craig and Nowata counties are rising up, demanding a stop to these industrial behemoths that scar landscapes and increase the electric bills.

While the western half of the state has embraced wind farms in its vast, open spaces, the east — more densely populated and wooded — offers no such buffer. These projects aren’t just unwelcome; they’re a direct assault on their way of life.

Take Lincoln County, where grassroots efforts by groups such as Save Oklahoma Farms and Ranches have mobilized against Apex Clean Energy’s Sandstone Project and Enel Green Power’s Cedar Run Wind Farm.

Sandstone plans turbines sprawling across 120,000 acres, though only 7,400 acres have been leased so far, with construction eyed for 2028. Cedar Run, at 97.5 MW on 15,000 acres, is already in pre-construction.

In Craig County, Triple Oak Power’s Cabin Creek aims for 50 to 100 turbines on 29,000 acres, with FAA approvals in hand and road agreements pending. Nowata County’s Hickory Creek by Apex adds to the dozens of projects by foreign-dominated companies that bring in out-of-state or overseas workers and take away local jobs during construction. There aren’t many permanent, full-time jobs created by big wind.

These aren’t the modest turbines of yesteryear; modern ones tower twice as high, blotting out sunsets. Shadow flicker is a problem for those who live nearby. Turbines also devalue nearby properties by 15 percent to 50 percent, due to visual blight and perceived health risks from electromagnetic fields and shadow flicker.

Imagine waking up one day to see a 750-foot industrial wind tower next door, knowing it will be there for 20-25 years before it becomes a nonfunctional eyesore — or they take it down, leaving only the concrete base.

Unlike western Oklahoma’s wide expanses, eastern terrain amplifies the intrusion, turning serene farms into industrial zones. Locating giant turbines near where people live is a problem that must be dealt with. The Oklahoma Legislature and the governor owe the people of eastern Oklahoma protections that were not needed in the wide-open expanses of western Oklahoma.

Communities in McIntosh, Okfuskee and Seminole counties are fighting back through Facebook groups such as No Wind Turbines McIntosh County and No Wind Turbines Seminole County, echoing sites such as saveoklahomaplan.com and saveoursunsetsok.com that decry the “green energy scam” eroding rural life.

Worse, Oklahomans foot the bill for this folly. Oklahoma generates 42 percent of its electricity from wind only when the wind blows, which is not always, while exporting surplus power to other states, with locals bearing transmission costs. The more they build, the more transmission costs get added to Oklahomans’ electric bills.

This is unfair. All electric users shouldn’t pay for these transmission wires to transport electricity to other states and regions. States are looking to change this. The purchasers of the electricity should pay, not those who live along the way who do not use the electricity.

In addition, when wind displaces large amounts of electricity that could be generated by coal and natural gas, facilities have to raise their prices. Because, like your car payment is far more than your gas payment, an electric plant’s highest cost is the cost of building it and maintaining it — not the fuel costs.

They charge more because they sell less, and everyone pays more. Since wind is part-time, natural gas and coal plants have to run all the time — even if generating little or no electricity — because the wind stops.

Then, to make matters worse, when electricity is purchased from Southwest Power Pool, the regional grid, they pay the highest price for the electricity they take from all generators, including wind and solar. Everyone pays more on their electric bill. They don’t pay the low bidding wind and solar their bid price; they pay them the highest price. Wind and solar power make our grids more expensive.

Projects like Invenergy’s Cimarron Link, a 1,900 MW HVDC line, force ratepayers to fund infrastructure they don’t need for out-of-state exports. This subsidizes foreign profits while Oklahomans pay higher bills.

Gov. Kevin Stitt remains staunchly pro-wind, even criticizing federal halts on projects, prioritizing diversification over community concerns.

Freshman Rep. Jim Shaw is leading the charge against this, filing bills for a moratorium on new wind and solar, expanded setbacks (0.25 miles or 2.5 times turbine height), and clawing back subsidies. Wind towers should be at least 1 mile from any current or planned home or barn with animals.

Lawmakers grapple with regulation amid local opposition, with anti-big wind rallies at the Capitol. It’s time to act. Shaw’s efforts demand a statewide pause.

Oklahomans deserve energy policies that protect their land, not export their resources for foreign gain. Let them preserve their sunsets, farms and future — before the turbines take them away.

RALLY AT THE OKLAHOMA CAPITOL MARCH 7 at 1:00 PM!  

Oklahoma smelter the first fruits of Trump aluminum policy

In May 2025, during a visit to the UAE, President Trump announced a strategic partnership that included commitments from Emirates Global Aluminium (EGA)- the world’s largest primary aluminum producer outside China- to invest billions in a new U.S. facility. This evolved into a joint venture announced on January 26, 2026, between EGA (majority stake) and Century Aluminum (U.S.- based, taking a 40% stake) to build a greenfield primary aluminum smelter in Inola, Oklahoma (near the Tulsa Port on the Verdigris River).

In May 2025, during a visit to the UAE, President Trump announced a strategic partnership that included commitments from Emirates Global Aluminium (EGA)- the world’s largest primary aluminum producer outside China- to invest billions in a new U.S. facility.

This evolved into a joint venture announced on January 26, 2026, between EGA (majority stake) and Century Aluminum (U.S.- based, taking a 40% stake) to build a greenfield primary aluminum smelter in Inola, Oklahoma (near the Tulsa Port on the Verdigris River).

This marks the first new primary aluminum smelter in the U.S. since 1980, ending a long “drought” in domestic capacity amid decades of offshoring, high energy costs, and cheap imports.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

Just months after winning a $500 million grant from the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Century Aluminum announced plans to construct and operate a new aluminum smelter in Inola, Oklahoma, that will have a production capacity of 500,000 tons per year of aluminum, including 20,000 tons of high-purity aluminum for defense applications.

Last May, President Trump, as part of his vision for reviving U.S. manufacturing industries, doubled tariffs on imported aluminum. The symbolic act (as the tariffs were later revised downward) echoed the President’s oft-stated view that along with steel, domestic aluminum is the backbone of both national security and economic independence.

Since the first U.S. aluminum smelter became operational in 1888 (just two years after the Hall-Heroult electrolytic smelting process was developed), the U.S. has been a world leader in supplying the lightweight, corrosion-resistant metal that helped transform multiple sectors of the U.S. and world economy.

The first hit on the U.S. aluminum industry came in the wake of the Arab oil embargo in 1979, as 1980 was the peak year for domestic smelting, at 908,000 metric tons. U.S. aluminum production, however, continued to climb into 1999, when about half of the 7.48 million metric tons was primary and half was secondary production.

Then, Enron happened.

As Reuters reporter Andy Home stated, a toxic combination of too little generation capacity, a chaotic pricing model, and the machinations of traders who manipulated a flawed system led to blackouts in California and a supernova hike in wholesale power prices. Aluminum smelting is a heavy power user, and all ten West Coast aluminum smelters shut down.

The final big blow to the U.S. aluminum industry came in the wake of the subprime crisis of 2008 that was like an earthquake for the U.S. automotive industry and brought about a collapse in aluminum demand. By 2016, 18 of the 23 aluminum plants in the U.S. operating in 1998 had permanently closed.

Shortly after President Trump was inaugurated for his first term, his first call for revival of the U.S. aluminum industry was rewarded when Alcoa announced it was reopening its Warwick smelter in Indiana. But in 2020, Alcoa shuttered its last remaining Pacific Northwest smelter, and the industry was again flailing against Chinese overproduction that submarined prices.

Today, the U.S. has just four operating aluminum plants with a combined output of 683,500 metric tons per year – while in 2024 the U.S. imported 5.46 million metric tons of aluminum.

Back in 2017, Home noted that import tariffs on aluminum could play a key role in returning aluminum production back to the U.S. But, he added, “when it comes to aluminum, ‘made in America’ needs to be powered in America – and that’s down to local utilities, not national policy.”

Home could not have foreseen that the Trump team in 2025 would make affordable electric energy a matter of national policy whether or not local utilities played along.

In 2025, the Trump White House did not just suggest – it demanded – that high energy users develop independent power sources [including nuclear] to keep their costs stable without interfering with other users of the electric grid.

In short, the reindustrialization of the U.S. will depend on corporate and government microgrids.

The December 2025 White House policy brief on aluminum states that the U.S. must develop a national strategy to prioritize, produce, and defend critical materials like aluminum. It further states the U.S. aluminum industry is poised for growth, given that global demand for aluminum is expected to grow by 80% through 2050 (according to the International Aluminium Institute).

The proposed Trump strategy rests on four pillars. First, pursue strong, targeted trade enforcement to defend U.S. aluminum manufacturers from Chinese and other non-market actors while leveraging trade with national security partners. That has been a major focus of Trump’s tariff policies.

Second, collect and keep more aluminum for America by strengthening recycling infrastructure and pursuing policies that grow scrap retention, collection, and sortation. [And you thought Trump wasn’t green!]

Third, recognize aluminum as critical for economic and national security through a national strategy that will secure aluminum supply chains; ensure access to efficient, reliable, affordable energy; and eliminate reliance on materials from non-market or adversarial countries.

And, finally, invest in America by investing in aluminum with common-sense tax policies that open the door to even greater private investment by aluminum companies.

President Trump has called out China’s unfair trade practices as the biggest threat to U.S. aluminum manufacturing. He cited an Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development analysis showing that China has supported its domestic industry with more than $60 billion in government subsidies in recent years.

Without China, the U.S. relies on Canada (via a Section 232 tariff exemption) for much of the aluminum its industries need – but the Canadian government has just sworn its allegiance to China, and U.S.-Canadian relations are at an all-time low.

Politically influenced strictures on U.S. aluminum imports make the Trump administration’s efforts on aluminum recycling all the more important. While the U.S. aluminum industry has invested more than $10 billion into increasing domestic capacity over the last decade, the industry relies on recycled material for more than 80% of its feedstock.

The good news is that aluminum can be infinitely recycled and that 75% of all the aluminum ever produced is still in use today.

Instead of sending $1 billion worth of aluminum beverage cans alone into landfills every year, the White House is calling for investments in recycling infrastructure and support policies – including recycling refund and extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems to increase consumer aluminum recycling.

This, says the policy brief, would support manufacturing jobs, increase U.S. independence in metal supply, save domestic energy, and minimize the industry’s impact on the environment.

But that’s not all.

President Trump wants the aluminum industry to invest in sorting technology and infrastructure to separate waste by material, then by alloy type, to foster an expansion of what can be recycled. This could keep more aluminum onshore and more readily available.

The chief reason for maximizing recycled aluminum is that only about 5% of the energy needed to manufacture new aluminum is needed to remanufacture recycled aluminum.

On the other hand, the Trump proposal calls for bringing new, affordable electricity generation online for smelters to lower the current 40% of production costs for primary smelting. That’s why the plan also calls for supporting natural gas production and pipeline expansion that utilizes abundant U.S. energy resources.

Taken as a whole, revitalizing the U.S. aluminum industry is something even the millions of Americans can help accomplish.

Imagine Joe Sixpack – helping save America one beer can at a time!

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

European Energy Firm Ordered to Remove 84 Wind Turbines from Osage Lands in Oklahoma

Energy Expert Robert Bryce: “It is a colossal black eye for the wind industry, which has collected tens of billions of dollars in federal tax credits by claiming its landscape-blighting, bird-and-bat-killing, property-value-destroying turbines are an essential part of the effort to avert catastrophic climate change.”

From Watts Up With That?

Legal Insurrection

Energy Expert Robert Bryce: “It is a colossal black eye for the wind industry, which has collected tens of billions of dollars in federal tax credits by claiming its landscape-blighting, bird-and-bat-killing, property-value-destroying turbines are an essential part of the effort to avert catastrophic climate change.”

Posted by Leslie Eastman

Early in 2024, I reported that a federal judge ordered an Italian energy firm had to remove an 84-turbine wind farm in Osage County. This was a big win for the Native American tribe, but there were still some legal details to be worked out with the company, Enel Energy.

The initial ruling from the federal judge in Tulsa did not establish a timeline for the removal or the turbines. Nor did the judge establish the number of damages due to the tribe.

Now the firm has been given both a deadline from wind turbine removal and the cost of damages, both of which are likely to knock the wind out of its 2025 fiscal goals.

December 1, 2025. That is the deadline Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the U.S. Court of International Trade gave to Enel and its subsidiaries to remove 84 wind turbines west of Pawhuska and return the land to its pre-windfarm state.

She also awarded about $4 million in monetary damages for both conversion, trespass and attorney fees.

“We are thankful that the Court stood up for Indian rights. Our lands and resources have been taken and used by others for more than 150 years,” said the Osage Minerals Council in a statement. “We will always fight to defend our Mineral Estate that our ancestors reserved for our benefit and the benefit of generations to come.

“We are open for business and we look forward to working with anyone who negotiates with us in good faith.”

Enel’s first mistake was ignoring how unhappy the Osage were about plans for the wind farm to begin with. Hot Air’s Beege Welborn noted the utter arrogance of the Green Energy Barons in her report on the initial ruling.

What tripped the wind company up was arrogance. How many times have we seen that before?

The Osage Nation might not have owned all the property, but they did hold title to all the mineral rights under the windfarm and the area required for maintenance roads, etc., ever since buying the land from the Cherokees in the late 1800’s.

As far back as 2011, at the very beginning of the project, the superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs wrote a letter to the company warning them not to violate the tribe’s mineral rights when construction started or during any part of the build-out.

Ignoring that warning, others which came later, and disregarding repeated subsequent orders to acquire a mining lease and stop the mineral violations were to prove Enel’s undoing. And it is going to cost them big time.

Enel stomped all over the Osage mineral rights in its quest to build its wind turbines.

In 2010, Enel leased 8,400 acres of surface rights in Osage County to construct a wind farm, which included 84 wind turbines. The installation required deep excavation, using explosives to create craters over 10 feet deep and 60 feet wide.

During construction, significant amounts of Osage minerals were removed, processed, and repurposed without authorization, leading to allegations of unauthorized mining.

And, as predicted, it is going to cost Enel Energy. The estimated cost for removing the turbines is approximately $300 million, which is a huge hit for the company. Besides the dismantling of the turbines, additional details demonstrate that the judge was not moved by the energy firm’s arguments.

  • The judge found the defendants liable for conversion, trespass, and continuing trespass on the Osage Mineral Estate.
  • The court awarded $242,652.28 for conversion and $66,780 for trespass.
  • The defendants must pay over $36 million in attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Osage Minerals Council.

Energy expert Robert Bryce notes that this is a historic victory against green energy barons.

For years, Big Wind has played hardball with rural communities. In some cases, Big Wind has sued rural governments to try to force them to accept wind projects they don’t want.

…Across the US, only a handful of turbines have ever been taken down due to local opposition. In 2022, two turbines in Falmouth, Massachusetts, were dismantled after numerous complaints from local homeowners about the noise from the turbines and a years-long legal battle.

But an order to remove 84 wind turbines— by a federal judge, no less— is nothing short of gobsmacking. It is a colossal black eye for the wind industry, which has collected tens of billions of dollars in federal tax credits by claiming its landscape-blighting, bird-and-bat-killing, property-value-destroying turbines are an essential part of the effort to avert catastrophic climate change.

It is also a massive, massive win for Native American tribes and their legal rights.

I suspect that this will be the first of many such victories against green energy barons, who have lorded over this nation using “climate crisis” pseudoscience and political connections. The climate in Washington, DC, has gotten chillier for this nonsense.

https://x.com/pwrhungry/status/1870202571291537647

Oklahoma’s Anti-ESG Law Is Not Hurting Sooner State Taxpayers or Retirees

Over the past three years, Oklahoma and 18 other Republican-controlled states passed legislation banning financial firms that pursue an environmental, social and governance (ESG) agenda from engaging in state financial business. Many of these states are, like Oklahoma, dependent on the oil and gas business for their economic and financial well-being. These anti-ESG laws are mainly defensive moves aimed at protecting the in-state energy industry from the existential funding threat posed by the climate-driven sustainable finance movement.

From Watts Up With That?

By Paul Tice

Over the past three years, Oklahoma and 18 other Republican-controlled states passed legislation banning financial firms that pursue an environmental, social and governance (ESG) agenda from engaging in state financial business. Many of these states are, like Oklahoma, dependent on the oil and gas business for their economic and financial well-being. These anti-ESG laws are mainly defensive moves aimed at protecting the in-state energy industry from the existential funding threat posed by the climate-driven sustainable finance movement.

The ESG empire is now striking back with lawsuits challenging many of these laws on both fiscal and fiduciary grounds. Progressive ESG activists are arguing with a straight face that these laws are hurting taxpayers and retirees and wasting government money by raising the cost of public finance and public pension fund management, with ironic appeals to free-market capitalism, constitutionality and apoliticism thrown in for good measure. 

Oklahoma now stands on the front line of this anti-anti-ESG legal fight. In 2022, the Sooner State passed House Bill 2034, the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act (EDEA), which prevents state and local agencies from doing business with financial institutions that boycott traditional energy companies. Under the EDEA, State Treasurer Todd Russ is required to maintain a running list of banned financial institutions engaging in energy discrimination, which the law defines as “without an ordinary business purpose, refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with a company” active in the fossil fuel chain. Notably, any financial institution can avoid being blacklisted by simply attesting in writing to the fact that it does not boycott energy companies, which would seem like a very low bar. 

Oklahoma’s anti-ESG law went into effect on November 1, 2022, although the first restricted company list (which included 13 sell-side and buy-side firms) was not released until May 3, 2023. The list was whittled down to six in August 2023 and then subsequently increased to seven in May 2024. It currently includes the following companies: BlackRock, Inc. (BLK ticker), Wells Fargo & Company (WFC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corporation (BAC), State Street Corporation (STT), Climate First Bank (a small private community bank) and Barclays PLC (BCS).

In December 2023, a lawsuit was filed by Don Keenan, a state pension beneficiary and the former president of the Oklahoma Public Employees Association, alleging that the EDEA was an unconstitutional state act that created “monumental” financial costs for municipal borrowers and state retirement accounts, the latter of which must be managed for the “exclusive benefit” of their beneficiaries and not subject to a “political agenda.” In May 2024, Oklahoma County District Court Judge Sheila Stinson issued a temporary injunction pausing the enforcement of the EDEA, pending a final decision in the Keenan case.

To bolster their case that Oklahoma’s EDEA raises borrowing costs for state and local governments, opponents have relied on a recent University of Central Oklahoma study funded by the Oklahoma Rural Association (ORA) which claims that this law has resulted in $185 million of additional borrowing costs for the state since its implementation. 

However, as detailed in a recent report by the American Energy Institute, the ORA study is deeply flawed and highly misleading. Released in April 2024, the ORA study looks at municipal bond market trends from January 1, 2018 through March 1, 2024, which means that it captures only 10 months of actual post-EDEA data, given that the first release of the state’s list of banned financial institutions was in May 2023.

From this truncated data set, the study attempts to extrapolate the specific impact of the EDEA on state and local municipal borrowing costs by comparing government bond coupon rates in Oklahoma versus a group of surrounding states that have not passed an anti-ESG policy (Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri), with the anti-ESG state of Texas (since 2021) included as an additional reference point. Given the divergence in credit ratings, economic fundamentals and fiscal drivers across this arbitrary geographic peer group, this is a dubious apples-to-oranges comparison which yields little in the way of meaningful takeaways. Two of the states in the supposedly non-EDEA control group (Arkansas and Missouri) both passed anti-ESG laws in 2023, further corrupting the comparative analysis.

Nonetheless, using a “difference of the differences” econometric regression model, the ORA study attributes an estimated 59 basis points of incremental municipal coupon rate to the EDEA, 15.7% higher than the average for Oklahoma’s neighboring states. This translates into roughly $10.9 million of additional borrowing costs per month. Multiplied by the 17 months since the passage of the EDEA, this results in the headline number of $185 million of additional financing expense through April 2024, when the ORA study was published. 

Rather than relying on subjective data interpolation and forward projections, we have the benefit of market hindsight to gauge the actual impact of the EDEA on Oklahoma’s municipal bond market.

Figure 1 shows the average yield to worst (YTW), which is the best real-time measure of market borrowing rates, for the S&P Municipal Bond Oklahoma Index since the beginning of 2022. The chart compares Oklahoma to a peer group of similarly rated energy-dependent U.S. states (both with and without anti-ESG laws) including Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Texas. The S&P U.S. Treasury Bond Index is also shown to highlight the correlation between the Treasury and municipal bond markets. 

As Figure 1 illustrates, Oklahoma has not seen an absolute or relative increase in municipal bond borrowing costs since the roll-out of the EDEA. To the contrary, the average YTW for Oklahoma state and local government issuers has actually tightened by 14 basis points since October 31, 2022. Almost all of the yield volatility over the past 19 months has been driven by movements in underlying interest rates, as seen by the lockstep trading between Oklahoma and its municipal peers and the U.S. Treasury Bond Index. From 2022-2023, the main driver of higher municipal bond yields in Oklahoma and every other state (anti-ESG or otherwise) was the shift in monetary policy and the increase in U.S. Treasury yields caused by 11 rate hikes (aggregating 5.25%) by the Federal Reserve.

Figure 2 shows summary statistics for each of the S&P indexes highlighted in Figure 1 including aggregate post-EDEA returns for each. Since October 31, 2022, the S&P Municipal Bond Oklahoma Index has posted a total return of 8.89%, broadly in line with the performance of its energy state peers regardless of anti-ESG legislative status, after adjusting for index differences in terms of weighted-average maturity. Moreover, the credit profile of the state of Oklahoma (Aa2/AA/AA general obligation bond ratings from Moody’s Investors Service, S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings, respectively) has improved over the same period, as evidenced by the recent ratings outlook change from stable to positive at both Moody’s in October 2023 and Fitch in February 2024. None of the three major rating agencies have noted the EDEA as a material credit factor in their analysis of Oklahoma’s creditworthiness over the past two years.

The absence of any market or credit impact makes intuitive sense when one considers the thinness of the argument being made by EDEA opponents: Oklahoma municipal borrowers are now being forced to pay more in issuance costs due to a lack of competition and fewer underwriting banks in the mix. While the five banks on Oklahoma’s restricted company list accounted for an aggregate 27.6% share of the negotiated municipal bond market in 2023, this still leaves six of the top 10 municipal underwriters plus several energy-focused regional bank players. Moreover, the municipal bond market remains highly competitive. Total new issuance has declined over the past two years (averaging $388 billion over 2022-2023, down 20% from $484 billion over 2020-2021), while underwriting spreads have compressed. This is the reason—too much market competition and challenging business profitability—why both Citigroup Inc. and UBS Group AG announced plans to exit the municipal bond underwriting market at the end of last year.

Notwithstanding such market reality, anti-EDEA groups have pointed to anecdotal evidence to show that Oklahoma municipal borrowers are now, indeed, paying more for financing. One oft-repeated story over the past year has revolved around the City of Stillwater being forced to pay 70 basis points more for a $13.5 million loan to finance an energy efficiency project (LED streetlights and government building HVAC units) contracted with Johnson Controls International plc (JCI)—all because the city was precluded from doing business with its house bank BAC, even though the blacklisted lender had the lowest bid. Over the term of the planned loan, this would have equated to $1.2 million of additional interest cost for the infrastructure project. Notably, the Stillwater financing anecdote was cited in both the ORA study and the Keenan lawsuit challenging the EDEA.

The story doesn’t hold water. First, Stillwater is a highly rated municipality with AA- general obligation bond ratings from both S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings. Second,  the city’s finances were able to weather a sharp increase in base interest rates during 2023, with the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond jumping by 168 basis points between April and October. Third, Stillwater enjoys ample financial flexibility and should not be overly dependent on any one particular financial institution (or market or instrument for that matter). Lastly, over the same 2023 timeframe, the city was able to replace BAC with an Oklahoma bank for the equipment financing of two new firetrucks without missing a beat, so it is unclear why this energy efficiency contract was so problematic from a financing perspective. A 70-basis-point increase in annual interest cost should not be enough to cancel any infrastructure project unless the project’s economics were already challenged to begin with. In the Stillwater project postscript, the JCI contract and related BAC financing, which were originally approved in April 2023 just before the initial EDEA list was released, were officially cancelled in August 2023 when the City Council opted to take the energy savings project in-house and use city workers to cut costs.

The same hearsay approach—seemingly large numbers provided without context—has also been used to argue that the EDEA is negatively affecting Oklahoma’s public pension funds by forcing retirement accounts to move their investment management business from the currently banned buy-side firms. Based on estimates prepared by the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS), the cost to the state pension system of re-contracting out its current BLK and STT portfolio allocations would approximate $10 million, with this $10 million number figuring prominently in the Keenan legal filing. 

While scary on its face, a little analytical digging quickly removes the fear factor. First, $10 million of incremental (and importantly, one-time) administrative costs spread out over an OPERS portfolio with a market value of $11.7 billion as of June 30, 2023, equates to only 8 basis points, which is a rounding error in terms of net investment performance. That said, even $10 million of estimated breakage costs seems high, given that OPERS paid out $10.9 million in total investment management fees for the full 2023 fiscal year. Since approximately 70% of the OPERS portfolio is currently passively invested, finding replacements for BLK and STT should not present a problem, although any OPERS investment contracts signed going forward should be looked at closely for unnecessary lock-up terms and termination costs (which may be the reason for the inflated $10 million EDEA compliance estimate). For proper perspective, the OPERS pension fund posted a total return of -14.5% during fiscal year 2022, losing $1.8 billion of market value when the U.S. debt and equity markets both traded down sharply in the wake of the shift in monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. Market beta is the main risk to OPERS portfolio performance and pension plan beneficiaries, not the drag from investment management fees (whether recurring or not).

Lastly, the Keenan lawsuit employs a kitchen-sink strategy to allege that the EDEA represents a breach of fiduciary responsibility by imposing a “political agenda” on Oklahoma’s public pension system, violating the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment  and the Oklahoma Constitution to boot. In the latter case, it is a statutory requirement that the OPERS system must be managed for the “exclusive benefit” of its plan participants and beneficiaries. Here, the anti-EDEA side is turning the legitimate criticism of ESG—that it is progressive politics masquerading as financial risk management and investment policy—on its head by arguing that the anti-ESG is the real political threat to free markets, fiduciary duty and pecuniary interest, which is quite rich.

In this regard, the OPERS Board of Trustees has noted that the pension fund’s primary goal is financial return—“providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses”—and does not factor ESG considerations into its investment philosophy or manager selection process. However, this ignores the fact that many Wall Street buy-side firms (including BLK and STT) are members of the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and already integrate ESG factors into all their legacy commingled funds, both active and passive. Moreover, many of these same asset managers are also members of various net-zero-driven climate alliances, most of which are closely aligned with the PRI. Even if ESG is not an explicit part of an investment management contract, asset owners such as OPERS are potentially exposing their portfolio performance to a sustainable investing framework and allowing their capital to be leveraged for ESG engagement purposes—both of which are problematic from a fiduciary perspective—unless their outsourced assets are tightly ring-fenced.

None of this is to say that Oklahoma’s EDEA cannot be improved. But while there is room for better wordsmithing to remove legal ambiguity, this does not mean that Oklahoma Republicans should cave to the opposition by rewriting the EDEA to carve out local municipalities. Such a move would gut the anti-ESG law. Granting EDEA exemptions without proper due diligence, which has been the case up until now, is effectively the same thing. Notably, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond offered an EDEA exemption for Stillwater’s $13.5 million cause celebre infrastructure project and simply accepted the $1.2 million incremental interest number at face value. If anti-ESG legislation is going to be part of the red state playbook, then Republicans need to do their financial homework when the political opposition starts to push back with specious analysis and vacuous numbers.

Given the weakness of the other side’s argument and the flawed data being used to back it up, now is not the time for anti-ESG supporters in Oklahoma to go wobbly and shrink from the political fight. A good rule of thumb is that when ESG progressives start complaining about government spending and defending free market capitalism and fiduciary responsibility, it usually means that conservative anti-ESG lawmakers are over the target.

Paul Tice is a senior fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics, an adjunct professor of finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and the author of “The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing Will Crater the Global Financial System.”

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Big Wind Closes Out The Year With One Of Its Biggest Defeats Ever

A federal judge sided with a Native American tribe in a dispute with a major wind developer on Wednesday, handing a massive defeat to the wind industry to end 2023.

From The Daily Caller

NICK POPE

CONTRIBUTOR

A federal judge sided with a Native American tribe in a dispute with a major wind developer on Wednesday, handing a massive defeat to the wind industry to end 2023.

U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ordered Enel, a major green energy company based in Rome with an American presence, to tear down an enormous wind farm that the firm had constructed in Osage County, Oklahoma, over the consistent protest of the Osage tribe who live in the area, according to the Tulsa World. The ruling is a huge victory for the Osage tribe, who opposed the project because of its location relative to burial sites and the ecological damage inflicted upon eagles by the massive turbines, and a stark defeat for Enel, which is now staring down hundreds of millions of dollars in decommissioning charges.

The wind farm had been the subject of a lengthy legal battle between the Osage Nation and the developer, spanning back to 2011, when the tribe filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the development illegally deprived the tribe of access to the mineral deposits beneath the site of the project, according to the Tulsa World. The project featured 84 turbines, as well as required equipment like transmission lines and weather towers, spread over 8,400 acres of land that Choe-Groves asserted was leased illegally and to the detriment of the tribe’s sovereignty. (RELATED: ‘Green Colonialism’: Biden Admin Clashes With Native American Activists Over Lithium Mine)

There will be a trial for damages following Choe-Groves’ ruling, according to the Tulsa World.

Notably, Enel states on its website that it exhibits “an unmatched commitment to sustainability and a just and inclusive energy transition for all.” Paolo Romanacci, who is the head of Enel Green Power North America, also serves as the director for the American Clean Power Association, a green energy trade group that has spent millions of dollars lobbying the federal government to advance the interests of the green energy industry, according to data from Open Secrets.

The ordered deconstruction of 84 wind turbines is “unprecedented,” according to Robert Bryce, an energy sector expert who also keeps track of local rejections of major renewable energy projects across the country. Bryce estimates that the company stood to reap tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies for the project, a dynamic which he considers at least partially responsible for the firm’s insistence to continue building and operating the project despite the persistent objections of the tribe.

“I hope no other tribe has to do what we had to do,” Osage Minerals Council Chairman Everett Waller told the Tulsa World, referencing the tribe’s long legal battle against the project. “This is a win not only for the Osage Minerals Council; this is a win for Indian Country. There are a lot of smaller tribes that couldn’t have battled this long, but that’s why we’re Osages. We’re here, and this is our homeland, and we are going to protect it at all costs.”

Enel did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.