Landman Lies

Super fact 77 : The TV series Landman portrays several falsehoods about clean energy. Since these claims are mostly unchallenged, appear to be information, and are also very easy to look up and debunk, they are deliberate lies.

“Lies” may be a strong word but if you make a very one sided presentation and you don’t fact check your claims even though that would take less than 30 seconds to do, especially since you are a large company with lots of resources, then you are clearly intentionally deceiving your audience, which is lying. I consider the claim above (in bold) a super fact because it is true, and it is important because it is a popular series and based on the reaction the Landman series has deceived a lot of people.

I got the idea for this super fact yesterday as we were watching a few episodes of Landman. Since I know a little bit about this topic the misinformation was obvious to me. The Landman series is fiction but the way the information was presented made it appear as facts. It appeared as if it was trying to teach us something rather than being the delusional rants of an oilman.

In addition, the misinformation is not minor. It consists of big bold whoppers. Imagine a movie promoting us taking Greenland from Denmark claiming that the Danes attacked Pearl Harbor, acquired a nuclear bomb, and used chemical weapons on Los Angeles. Whatever your opinion on the Greenland situation is, these big whoppers would likely make it harder for you to watch the movie, at least if you know some history. If most people’s knowledge of history was so bad that they’d believe it, then it would also create problems. There is a lot of confusion and misinformation regarding clean energy, and it is a poorly understood topic, so telling big lies does damage.

Photo of a row of wind turbines. | Landman Lies
Wind turbines from pexels.com

It may come as a surprise to many that Paramount plus would deliberately mislead their audience. However, clean energy, climate science, evolution, vaccines, and any science that is inconvenient to some people have been undermined by false information for quite a while. It is just more of it than usual right now. That the executive branch is at war with clean energy might have something to do with it.

Misleading information about clean energy is often spread on social media via fake memes, non-reputable sources, comments by people who do not know what they are talking about, conspiracy theories, small groups of contrarian agenda driven scientists making youTube videos with false information, bots, deep fakes, etc., but now it has also shown up in a major Hollywood Production.

It is more important than ever to be skeptical of claims you hear, especially if they seem to support your own political, ideological, religious, or philosophical views, because that’s how you get bamboozled. Questioning other people’s views does not require much effort. I speak from experience. Intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief. Verify all claims before you take them seriously. Be a realist.

Truth: Windpower and Solar are Much Cleaner than Fossil Fuels

The false claim in the series is that “there is nothing clean about clean energy, that renewables require too much fossil fuel to build to be considered clean.” I am using the true statement as the title of this section because our memories often mix up the false and true statements as time goes by, so highlighting the true statement helps.

Manufacturing, transporting, and building infrastructure for wind power currently involve fossil fuels and so do fossil fuel plants. However, this is only an initial stage. Once wind and solar facilities are built, they generate power without direct emissions, unlike fossil fuel plants which continue to burn fuel and emit CO2 during their entire operational lives. For example, the lifetime emissions of gas-powered generation are estimated to be around 20 to 40 times higher than those of renewables. You can read more here or here.

This is a 3 minute video

Truth: Wind turbines typically offset their carbon footprint within a year

The demonstrably false claim is that “wind turbines do not offset their carbon footprint within their lifespan.” According to energy researchers, for example, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a wind turbine typically offsets the carbon emissions from its manufacturing, transport, and installation within six months to one year of operation. In other words, wind turbines offset their carbon footprint quickly. The average lifespan of a wind turbine is over 25 years.

Truth: Solar and Wind Are Cheaper than Gas, Coal and Nuclear

The false claim in Landman is that “solar and wind energy are significantly more expensive than natural gas.” While wind and solar can have higher upfront installation costs, their operational costs are very low as they do not require fuel. Therefore, they can provide electricity very cheaply, making them competitive with and often cheaper than natural gas over their full lifespan.

However, all energy sources are subsidized, and fossil fuels have a long history of government subsidies. Below is the average unsubsidized levelized cost of energy in the United States according to Lazard. Levelized means that construction costs, land rent, and other costs not directly caused by electricity generation are taken into consideration. Notice how cheap wind is (blue line). This is for the United States not just Texas. I don’t have any numbers, but I’ve heard that for Texas solar is the cheapest .

The image shows 8 graphs representing the price of Nuclear, Gas (peaker), Thermal Solar, Coal, Geothermal, Natural Gas, Solar Panels, and Wind. Today Wind is the cheapest.
Average unsubsidized levelized cost of energy. Notice that the light blue line indicates that wind power is pretty cheap. Mir-445511, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons.

The free market based Texas (my state) grid ERCOT provides an excellent example of how wind and solar effectively compete with other energy sources. ERCOT provides a minute by minute update for the fuel mix percentages. This is a fun website.

Truth: Fossil Fuels are Worse for the Environment than lithium batteries and solar panels

The false claim in Landman is that “Lithium batteries and solar panels are worse for the environment than fossil fuels.” Solar panels typically offset the emissions from their production and installation within 1 to 4 years. Battery technology is continuously improving, and current systems are highly recyclable (90-95%). While the mining of materials like lithium has environmental impacts, the overall lifetime emissions of renewables and associated storage systems are vastly lower than those of fossil fuels.

Truth: Fossil fuels kill a lot more birds than Wind Power per Giga Watt

Tommy Norris (played by Billy Bob Thornton) implies in a rant that “Wind turbines are a major ecological disaster for birds, disrupting patterns and causing mass deaths.” While wind turbines kill some birds it is minor compared to the impacts of the oil and gas industry or other common human activities. This study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. These articles from MIT provide additional information and reiterate that fossil fuels are lot more deadly to birds than wind power stations. You can read more on this topic here, here, here or here.

The graph shows that Wind Turbines kill 328,000 birds per year in the US, Electrocutions kill 6,250,000 birds, Collisions with powerlines kill 32,500,000 birds, Poison kills 72,000,000 birds, Vehicle collisions kill 214,500,000 birds, Collisions with glass kill 676,500,000 birds, and cats kill 1,850,700,000 birds per year in the US. | Landman Lies
From Wikipedia: Universiteit van Nederland, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons
Bar graph showing cats killing an estimated 2,400 million birds per year, buildings killing an estimated 599 million birds per year, automobiles killing an estimated 200 million birds per year, pesticides killing an estimated 67 million birds per year, powerlines killing an estimated 28 million birds per year, communication towers killing an estimated 6.6 million birds per year, and wind turbines killing an estimated 1.2 million birds per year.
An alternative graph taken from Hannah Richie / Our World in Data, using alternative sources essentially showing the same thing. Sources: Loss et al. (2015), (2013), US Fish and Wildlife Service; Subramnayan et al. (2012), American Bird Conservancy (2021).

Truth: There is no evidence that Offshore Wind Kills Whales

The false claim in Landman is that “offshore wind development, including site characterization surveys, is responsible for a spike in whale deaths”. The primary cause of human-caused threats to large whales are vessel strikes and entanglement in fishing gear but not offshore wind. According to NOAA there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities. You can read more on this topic here, here, or here.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Unknown's avatar

Author: thomasstigwikman

My name is Thomas Wikman. I am a software/robotics engineer with a background in physics. I am currently retired. I took early retirement. I am a dog lover, and especially a Leonberger lover, a home brewer, craft beer enthusiast, I’m learning French, and I am an avid reader. I live in Dallas, Texas, but I am originally from Sweden. I am married to Claudia, and we have three children. I have two blogs. The first feature the crazy adventures of our Leonberger Le Bronco von der Löwenhöhle as well as information on Leonbergers. The second blog, superfactful, feature information and facts I think are very interesting. With this blog I would like to create a list of facts that are accepted as true among the experts of the field and yet disputed amongst the public or highly surprising. These facts are special and in lieu of a better word I call them super-facts.

43 thoughts on “Landman Lies”

  1. I’ve never heard of this show before but the falsehoods it’s spreading aren’t a surprise. David Ellison is the founder of Paramount Plus and together with his father (Oracle founder Larry Ellison) is an avid supporter/friend of Donald Trump. Although Trump recently complained about the Ellisons because of a negative presentation about him on 60 Minutes (the network is owned by Paramount) they apparently are again friends after 60 Minutes delayed/altered another negative Trump segment. Paramount Plus isn’t going to air anything Trump would disagree with.

    Well said, Thomas. It’s important that people like yourself continue to shed light on all these lies.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Wow I did not know this. Well I knew about Larry and David Ellison and their leanings but I did not know David Ellison is the founder of Paramount Plus. That might have something to do with a Paramount Plus pumping out deliberate lies in show, but I don’t know. I hope that is not a sign of things to come.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. David Ellison isn’t the founder of Paramount + ; that’s the streaming service of a company has been around since the 1910s, originally as one of the Big Six movie studios, Paramount Pictures. What he is, though, is the chairman and CEO of the larger parent company, Paramount Skydance, a newer (and meaner) entity that emerged after a recently completed (2025) merger between Paramount Global (parent company of Paramount Pictures, Paramount +, and CBS) and Ellison’s Skydance Media (which he did found). He, like his father Larry, is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, which means he’s no friend of democracy or a free press.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      2. Alex, thank you for adding the institutional and historical precision here. That clarification about the merger and leadership structure sharpens the discussion and prevents a false narrative from replacing another. Context like this matters when media power and public trust intersect.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  2. Thank you, Thomas, for these important clarifications. All the misinformation comes, ultimately, from the magnates of the not-so-clean energy sources that would lose a lot if the truth about cleaner sources became viral. A very insightful post. Much enjoyed! With appreciation, sending you light and blessings and wishing you a peaceful day! ✨🙏

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you so much Robbie. There is more but I think this is enough. I hope people who still watch it will realize that what Tommy Norris say is nonsense. It would have been nice if Paramount had added half sentence fact check by the lawyer he talked to, to help the audience not take it seriously but that is obviously not what they wanted.

      Like

      Reply

    1. We watched the same shows and I got tired of Tulsa King as well after a while. I thought Yellowstone was pretty good though but I did not see the whole thing. I am not going to watch the upcoming season 2 of Landman.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. My husband and I watch Landman, but there are definitely times when we roll our eyes, Thomas. They make oil drilling look so heroic and noble. For the oil field employees, it’s hard work, and I think work, in general, should be respected, but the show does “glamorize” the fossil fuel industry, which is highly discouraging. It also highlights the incredible, relentless corruption in the industry, including instances of political corruption. That part seems true! I also dislike the way it presents women, but that’s a whole other discussion. 😀 Great post.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you so much Diane. You are right they “glamorize” the fossil fuel industry. What bothered me the most though, being the fact oriented person I am, is that the nonsense Tommy Norris says is presented in a manner that will make many people will think it is facts. There is no attempt at fact correcting to help the audience. This is clearly done on purpose to bamboozle people, which we can see on social media.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. Diane, your balance is important—respect for the dignity of labor without romanticizing the industry or ignoring its harms. That distinction between honoring work and questioning the story told about it adds real ethical depth to this conversation.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  7. My husband and I are fans of Landman, but it is fiction. I just assumed that Billy Bob’s character is typical of many Texans who have that mistaken viewpoint about clean energy, especially since he works in the oil industry. As you said: “the delusional rants of an oilman”. Not to be taken seriously.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Your way of watching it is intelligent, but that is not how many people watch it as evident from social media. We have a pretty severe critical thinking deficit now a day. The nonsense Tommy Norris says is presented in a manner that will make many people think it is facts. There is no attempt at fact checking to help the audience. Even a half sentence fact check by the female lawyer he was talking to would have made a difference. Instead there were just really lame responses. This is clearly done on purpose. You are right Tommy Norris rants should not be taken seriously.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. Soon after I read this post, I saw something in another blog about evaporation ponds used in lithium production that are apparently highly toxic to birds. Looking this up, I saw mentions of immense water use in places where water is limited, but also other methods of lithium extraction that are more efficient (and maybe less harmful?). So while renewables may be better overall, there are harmful impacts in certain areas. And of course fossil fuel extraction has serious negative impacts, as does burning those fuels. So I’m not arguing with what you say here, Thomas, just noting that all kinds of information is floating around out there, and sometimes it’s hard to know what to think! 🙂

    Thanks for these posts; they are certainly informative!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Audrey. You are right there is not a perfectly clean/green way of generating electricity. However, I try to correct misinformation. For example, while both gas and coal and renewables burn fossil fuel directly or indirectly (at some point) gas burn 20 to 40 times as much as wind over their lifetime for the same amount of electricity generated, while Tommy Norris in show claims the opposite, that renewables end up burning more.  With respect to Lithium mining, it is still a significant problem, like you said, but a smaller one than fossil fuels, which isn’t what the show said.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. Audrey, this is a thoughtful reminder that “cleaner” doesn’t mean “perfect.” Naming real trade-offs while keeping proportional impact in view is exactly how public understanding improves—without sliding into denial or false equivalence.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. I had not heard of Landman before this post. Thank you for the graphs about causes of bird deaths as that has been a concern for me. I’ve read that painting the tips of the blades black can help birds see turbines better, and there are probably other mitigating strategies. Still, I would not want to see a fields or oceans full of wind turbines. Go Solar!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Yes there are some ways of reducing bird deaths from wind turbines that are being tried around the world. painting the tips of the blades black is one of them. There is also acoustic deterrents, blade designs and avoid placing them in bird migration paths. However, it is good to remember that the fossil fuels being replaced by wind power kill about 15 times as many birds for the same amount of energy. Solar is coming along strong. Here in Texas it is now 8-10% of the energy mix up from 2% five years ago.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  11. Thank you for sharing this. Yes, putting misleading and incorrect information into a fictional presentation is particularly insidious. Incidental information included by the staff writers would likely be vetted by Paramount’s lawyers. So, it does seem likely that such misinformation would have been added explicitly at the instruction of executives and then backed up by lawyers willing to represent the executives should they be challenged.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  12. Thomas, this is a careful and necessary dismantling of how entertainment can smuggle misinformation by sounding educational. What stands out is not just the data you cite, but the discipline of proportionality—lifetime emissions, comparative harm, and cost over time rather than cherry-picked moments. The problem you name isn’t fiction; it’s presentation without internal correction, which quietly trains viewers to confuse confidence with truth. In an era where confirmation bias is profitable, this kind of fact-anchored clarity is a public service. Thank you for insisting that skepticism begin with our own assumptions—especially when a show tells us exactly what we’re inclined to believe.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  14. Hi Thomas…As a fan of Landman I must say I all of your observations did not alert my radar-sigh- I agree with Livora completely and on many occassions have picked up on where seemingly innocent entertainment isnot just that…I have nothing to say in my defence I obviously let my guard down…Thank you for your insights Thomas x

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I think it is very easy to be misled by claims in fictional presentations. You don’t have your guard up, you are not expecting facts, you are not prepared to be skeptical or do fact checking. That is why “inserting incorrect information into a fictional presentation is particularly insidious” as David states above. I certainly don’t blame the audience for believing the false factoids, I blame Paramount plus for doing it, and it was deliberate. I think that I only noticed it because I already knew what the facts were. Sometimes when you know too much certain entertainment is harder to watch. I made a post because the show is so popular and the false statements have become so widely believed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. You are kind,Thomas nothing surprises me any more but I will now be more watchful it’s almost no not almost they want to turn us into sheep….and blindly follow and we only have to look around and it’s working…

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

Leave a reply to Esther Chilton Cancel reply