Haldimand County will be receiving a hefty settlement from Samsung Renewable Energy for road repairs in the county.

“We’re settling out the road use agreements for (Samsung’s) wind project and transmission lines,” Tyson Haedrich, Haldimand’s director of engineering services, said to councillors on May 5.

Staff said the company has agreed to cut the county a cheque for $3.3 million. This is on top of the $500,000 that Samsung already gave the county for road repairs last fall.

The settlement comes after Samsung finished building 67 wind turbines in the South Cayuga area, as well as installed 111 poles along Haldimand Road 20.

Last fall, the company began restoring the roads it damaged during those projects, but the work wasn’t done fast enough for staff.

“They were doing the road restoration work, and as council remembered, the work was going slowly,” Haedrich said.

With Samsung footing the entire bill, county staff and the company agreed to share the task of repairing the roads, and Samsung gave Haldimand $500,000 to get started. Continue reading Samsung Renewable pays Haldimand $3.8M for road repairs →

Some Huron-Perth Landowners Association members are worried about mortgages associated with properties leased for the K2 Wind Energy Project.

They’re concerned those mortgages could affect what farmers and other landowners could do with their properties.

But K2 spokesman Jay Shukin says every land lease agreement gives the project’s banker a security interest in the project – including a security interest in the lease agreement.

Shukin says that ensures the lease remains intact regardless of any other transaction the landowner may undertake with the land.

However, he says it doesn’t affect the landowners title to the land.

Shukin says the landowner can still sell the land, rent the land, mortgage the land or transfer the land.

The K2 spokesman says the only recourse the bank has is that in the event the company goes out of business, the bank can take over that portion of the lease where the project infrastructure in situated.

Ontario Farmer, May 5, 2015

by Garth Manning and Jane Wilson

It came as a surprise to many in Ontario when it was revealed that the multi-national power developers behind the K2 wind power generation project near Goderich had secured $1 B in financing, and that this arrangement is now registered on title for the 100 farm properties involved as lessors.

The arrangement is between K2 Wind Ontario Inc. and Mizuho Bank Ltd. Canada Branch. It secures a revolving credit facility of up to $1 billion at 25% on a number of items, including the contracts between landowners and K2 for land and road agreements with municipalities.

Another, smaller example has also come to light: a wind power project south of Ottawa in Eastern Ontario, where the five landowners leasing land for a 30-megawatt, 10-turbine project now have charges on their properties for $70 million.

Immediately, questions arise as to what would happen if the power developers were to default on their loans: would the lender then own the farm properties? How would that affect road use agreements with municipalities?

Continue reading Farm owners’ property as security for wind farm financing: what owners need to know →

“The Council of Canadian Academies continues to rehash selected studies to further wind turbine development–and set aside wind turbine complaints as only a nuisance for public-health officials. Dismissing white papers as ‘grey’ and neighbors’ documentation of harm just adds to the number of wind-turbine victims…. Public health studies should not appear to be performed with blind eyes and deaf ears.”

This question was posed by the Council of Canadian Academies (CAA):Is there evidence to support a causal association between exposure to wind turbine noise and the development of adverse health effects? The answer given was that only personal attitude and annoyance resulted for those in direct proximity to wind turbines.

However, real people and real studies have been ignored to reach this conclusion.

The CCA supports the status quo for wind turbines by failing to recognize that wind turbines operating in quiet rural communities produce the most significant adverse health effects.  This study should not have been hobbled by competing government responsibilities: wind-turbine development incentives, site permitting, and protecting public health. Academic participation does not foster credibility when commissioned to perform consensus building.

Wind-turbine health research is critical, which requires health professionals to make contributions to original research as witnesses. There are many adversely affected communities where they could live as wind turbine neighbors. Two acousticians concerned about why there were so many neighbors’ complaints, went to Falmouth, Massachusetts, to investigate wind turbine noise levels during strong winds. They were invited by strangers already adversely impacted to use their home—a custom, well-built, insulated house, about 1700-ft from an operating 1.65 MW turbine. (Wind turbine acoustic investigation: Infrasound and low frequency noise—A case study). These owners experienced significant health problems forcing the abandonment of their “dream” house.

Master Resource, By Stephen Ambrose — May 5, 2015

This is my submission in regard to the senate enquiry to wind farms.
My name is Peter Jelbart, I am 31 years old and grew up at our home property, where mum and dad farm to this day. It was a great place to grow up and my upbringing, although it was not perfect, was very good. I remember as a young child dad working away shearing 5 days a week and farming on weekends, to hold onto the dream of farming grandpa’s block. I remember them having to sell land up the road, and only just holding onto the home block. I remember as a primary school age kid feeding hay and grain to sheep after school, while dad was away for, at times, weeks. I remember sheep being pitted and being told to play while the crack of 22 bullets rang out and truck load after truck load of sheep got dumped in a pit. This was in the early 90’s, wool was bad, land was worth nothing and interest rates were running into the 20% region. However as bad as things were at home mum and dad did everything they could for us. Obviously education was a priority, as was being involved with local football and cricket. The farm and home means everything to us. It is my parent’s life’s work, superannuation and life savings, all in one neat block of Western Victorian dirt.

Continue reading Select Comittee Submission # 270 Peter Jelbart →

VOW (Victims of Wind) – OPEN LETTER 04.2015
Statement on Government Funded Reviews of IWT Impacts on Health

VOW is a confidential support network for people who have been adversely affected by loud, cyclical noise, low frequency vibration, infrasound and dirty electricity emissions coming from industrial wind turbine facilities.

Victims of Wind are tired of tolerating years of literature reviews that are being used as a benchmark by the government to allow harm-imposing wind turbine facilities to operate.

Ongoing, time-consuming desk top reviews, reviews of earlier reviews and delays waiting for results are forcing more and more families to fall victim to the despair caused by new projects being sited too close to their homes. Continue reading Statement on Government Funded Reviews of IWT Impacts on Health →

Harm to  Health & Wind Turbines.  Deputations to HN Board of Health:

Please consider attending to support Norfolk Victims of Industrial Wind Turbines as Stephana Johnston (and other adversely impacted residents) give their deputations to the HN Board of Health on Tuesday, April 28 at the Norfolk County Council chambers.

Start time for the HN Board of Health meeting is 5:30 pm, for more information please call 519 – 586 – 9437:

“This is to confirm that you are scheduled on the Agenda for the Board of Health meeting on Tuesday, April 28,2015, as a deputation to speak regarding Health Hazards.

Please be advised that the Board of Health meeting will commence at 4:30 p.m. changed to 5:30 pm in the Council Chambers, County Administration Building, 50 Colborne Street South, Simcoe.  Please use the Talbot Street entrance and proceed upstairs.

A direct link to the Agenda will be posted on the front page of Norfolk County’s website, www.norfolkcounty.caunder Public Notices on the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting if you would like to see where you are scheduled on the Agenda.

The Procedural By-Law of Norfolk County allows deputations to address Committee for ten minutes in total per person or group. Following your deputation, Committee will have an opportunity to ask questions regarding your deputation.  If you have any questions, feel free to contact Andy Grozelle, Clerk, at 519-426-5870, Extension 1228 or andy.grozelle@norfolkcounty.ca. or Stephanie Godby, Deputy Clerk/Licensing Coordinator at 519-426-5870, Extension 1237 or stephanie.godby@norfolkcounty.ca..

If you require the use of the laptop and projector for a PowerPoint presentation, please contact Janet Woynarski in the Clerk’s office at janet.woynarski@norfolkcounty.ca or by telephone 519-426-5870 Extension 1222 to make arrangements to have your presentation loaded onto the laptop in advance of the meeting to ensure that it works properly.

We are committed to providing services as set out in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.  If you have any accessibility needs, please contact us as soon as possible.

Please note that all Norfolk County Buildings have been designated as Scent Free and we encourage visitors to refrain from using scented products when meeting in Norfolk County Buildings.”