vhawk12

Frickin' Asian Carp..... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/b...-212351944.html

"The Mrs. will be starting to worry by now.....just one more cast" Ha ha, my exact inner dialogue...and it always seems to turn into at least 50 more casts.

Don, Do you really think that the industry has not improved in terms of technology, safety and environmental awareness in the past 45 years? 45yrs ago, the industry still had the 'rape and pillage' attitude. Undoubtedly you have a lot of field experience, but that does not make you an engineer (working in the industry at 11 I assume you did not go to high school or university). It seems like you have a lot of time on your hands, so why don't you research the advances in completions technology over the last 45 years and give us a report. While you're at it, maybe list all the environmental regulations in place 45 years ago versus today, maybe include the effect on computers have had on technology in the industry. Also, I think there is a lot of confusion about wellbore completions, so what about casing requirements in Canada versus the US? Although it sounds mundane, I think that there have been quite a few changes in cementing techniques as well, including running wireline logs to assess cement competency. I look forward reading what you find out.

Oh, yeah and don't wear more than one pair of socks, you're just asking for blisters. Buy a good wool or synthetic sock (ie. not cotton) that will absorb moisture, keeping your feet warmer. I love merino wool!

Worked part-time at Cellar off McLeod for 7 years. We don't sell a lot of touring stuff, but I do have some experience with the 'intuition' style liners as I bought some Garmont Endorphins a few years ago. I was warned to buy them tight, I fit them myself using a convection oven (can find directions online). I have problems on the outside of my foot so I duct-taped a pad to the side of my foot to make a bit of room. I was in tears while I wore the boots around for 10mins after the liners came out of the oven, but they pack out about a half to full size, and now, they fit like a glove! So I would say for anything with this style of liner that if it feels comfy in the store, it's too bit, it should be quite snug before heat fitting. Just my experience!

Harps, In a true free-form Capitalist economy, there would be no royalties either. I previously explained that the reason that the gov't subsidized O&G is to shoulder some of this risk in order for them to reap the rewards. So you're right, no subsidies and no royalties either. You may be right about a RoW, but I guess I was speaking more to the leasing of land by O&G companies, which if it's Crown land, the gov't charges an arm and a leg for, which is separate from the whole 'Royalty Regime'. Not sure what you mean by permitting...why would that increase in a purely capitalist economy? So yes, we live in a social democracy, but it sounds like a lot of people are thinking that a lot more focus on the "social" part is where we should be heading and I say, sure, go ahead and we'll see what happens. Bob, As far as Shell showing all the by products of their process, it would be a ton of chemical names that you would have to be a chemist to understand, so what value is that adding for the average reader? It's bad stuff, the public knows it and the companies know it, which is why there is soo much money being pumped into research in attempt to reduce the environmental impact of all facets of these projects.

Not sure what you mean about contaminating the reservoir, do you mean the bitumen reservoir? Also, these ancient aquifers can be very large. I've seen a water zone over about 10 sections that is estimated to hold 150 million barrels of water in place. Having said that, there is a race to find water, both fresh (but not potable) and brackish as well as suitable disposal zones and lock it up because these projects go nowhere without adquate water supply.

Don, In regards to recycling the water, I don't think a lot of people know that...the vast majority of the public still thinks that SAGD takes water right out of the Athabasca river and doesn't recycle it, but disposes of it back into the river. I believe that's why CAPP is putting out those commercials to try and combat misconceptions about these projects. It's fine that you question CAPP's info, I just ask that you question the info coming from other sources to the same degree, I would speculate you'll find the truth is somewhere in the middle. What's new in technology? There was a post that listed a lot more processes than SAGD, many of which involve steam mixed with solvents, oxidation, injection of microbes that actually upgrade the bitumen in place (not a joke), microwave technology, there is tons of money being thrown into research right now for both clastic and carbonate in-situ projects. We'd be foolish to think that companies are not trying to find more cost effective ways to get this resource out of the ground. It appears that you are attempting to perform your due diligence and get accurate numbers from the appropriate sources, so I for one would like to know what you end up finding out.

Ok, so my "if you don't like it leave comment" obviously hit a nerve, and I get it. However, I am sick of people complaining about how much oil companies make and thinking that said companies should be shelling out more money just because they make so much. This is a Capitalist nation still isn't it? or did I miss something? If you sell someone a flyrod and they start catching tons of fish, do you expect them to give some to you (assuming we are not on a C&R stream and you primarily eat fish for food)? Or maybe we could all catch fish and share them equally among the guys that do well and the guys that get skunked (Socialism?) or we can catch fish, give them all to the government and let them decide who gets what (Communism?) If you're going to start chirping about how much oil companies make, you'd better make sure all your facts are straight on both profits and expenditures, which I think is what Don is looking to do in this post. What I am not saying is that these companies should not be held accountable for the environmental impact they have while they are exploiting any resource (Forestry and Agriculture included). As far as the "Alberta landowner", it's not like they're forced into signing their names on leases, they have to feel that they are getting fairly paid for what they are giving up, which is essentially surface access because very few people have mineral rights anymore. I am not saying that companies should be allowed to run rampant on our soil, but that is a tricky line to walk (as proven by Ed's Royalty debacle). In the future, I would like to see some increased Protectionism policies in place (for all resource industries) that charge a premium for international companies to do business here. Although it sounds a bit contradictory to what I'm saying about companies being able to maximize profits, it would allow homegrown businesses a bit of a break (ie. Nexen, CNRL, Canadian Oilsands, etc.) meaning their profits increase and we hopefully see returns in these companies employing Canadians and building infrastructure. Again, a fine line between companies hungry to do business here and us taxing them to the point that it's not worth it. The reason that we subsidize O&G is to have the gov't shoulder some of the risk involved in exploration. Do you think that oil companies should take all the risk and then pay out royalties to the gov't when they do hit pay? What about the 5 dry holes they drilled to find that one producing well? The costs to drill a deep basin well can be upwards of $20 million, so 5 dry holes @ $20 million is $100 million, plus the $20 million it cost to drill the successful well, so when they hit a pay zone, it better have at least $120 million worth of reserves just to offset the cost of exploration. BUT the gov't takes royalties on what they find so say they take so say 15% of $120 million is $18 million, so actually just to break even the reservoir better hold upwards of $140 million of reserves....anything above that and they make money, but there are operating/shipping/refining costs as well. So Don, maybe this answers some of your question is that I would speculate that those numbers you put up do not account for the general cost of exploration, the costs you've listed are taken from the time that the reserves are actually booked, thus not taking into account the cost of exploration to find the stuff. For the record, I am a born and bred rural Albertan, so is my father and his father before him. I've seen changes in this Province/Country too, some good, some bad, like you said Don, it just depends on your perspective.

Ok, so here's a couple things I can shed some light on....Don, I can't answer your question as far as where the $72 goes, but what I can tell you is that the Oilsands is far from being "figured out". Sure the big surface-mineable deposits are largely discovered, but it is the SAGD (and other thermal recovery methods) that companies are alotting research dollars towards. First of all, I believe at the current time, a 'profitable' SAGD project takes 3 barrels of water (to make steam) to produce on barrel of bitumen. Let me also qualify that this water is sourced from deep water, ancient aquifers, not the Athabasca river or surrounding lakes. Companies are researching ways to reduce the Steam to Oil Ratio (SOR), which means less water is needed per barrel of oil produced, thus maximizing profit (takes money to find the water too). Also, underlying the oil"sands" are heavy-oil carbonates. These formations have vugs (read holes like swiss cheese) that are filled with essentially pure bitumen. Currently there is an estimated 400 billion barrels of oil in the Grosmont formation (you will hear a lot about this in the next 5-10 years) which is not currently included in Alberta's 170 billion barrels of reserves. This is because at the moment, commercial production of this zone is non-economic at the moment due to reservoir properties of the rock. The carbonates are where the oilsands were 15-20 years ago...how do you get the bitumen out effieciently? Well the techies have come up with solutions for the sands, so we think that research will allow us to economically extract the bitumen from this formation as well. We will never get all of the bitumen, but even at a recovery factor of 50%, that would add 200 billion barrels of reserves to Alberta, putting us up there with Saudi Arabia. So I'm not going to sit here and say that oil companies don't make a lot of money, they do, but I HATE the sentiment "where are the companies going to go? It's all here". Well first of all, it isn't 'all here', but the political and economic stability of Canada make it a desireable place to do business; however, if companies can not maximize their profits, they will go elsewhere, and have. All you have to do is look at the last Royalty fiasco...did the companies pack up and leave? Nope, they just scale back their activity to pretty much nil while still holding the leases until things become economic for them to operate again. In the meantime, people downtown lose jobs, businesses that support the oilfield service industry go broke, and that trickles down to home-builders and car dealerships, etc. All the while, companies are buying up land in BC and Sask. like you wouldn't believe. Also, just because Gov'ts increase royalties doesn't mean that you're going to see any of it...assumably, the money will go to roads and infrastructure, etc. but at the same time, there is an entire wing of the Children's Hospital that was largely funded by Encana. The point is that just because the oil companies don't have to pay huge royalties doesn't mean that they don't help support infrastructure on their own...hell it's a tax break right? Anyway, if you live in Alberta, you are affected by the oil industry, from rural motels to professionals downtown, it's a fact of life, if you don't like it, then I suggest you move somewhere else.

How about pinning this post for reference????

Actually, washing your waders will help to restore the waterproofing qualities of the gore-tex (or other breathable material). It's the same with Ski Jackets made of waterproof-breathable material. As you kneel down in the river, or fall on your ass on the bank, silt will wedge itself between the fibers of the fabric, thus increasing size of the holes that allow normally allow vapor out, but prevent water droplets from entering. Washing them gets rid of the silt and allows the fibers to tighen up again. I called BS on this until I started getting wet in my gore tex jacket, washed it and the water would just bead off of it again. Once washed, you can actually feel the difference, the fabric feels much smoother again. You can go to a ski shop and find some Nikwax detergent for use with Gore-Tex (or a mild detergent), wash your waders in your machine on the gentle cycle and hang to dry. This way, your waders will keep you dry and only smell like farts for a long time.

The mineral is spelled Mica, just for the record, and it doesn't appear to be Mica to me (there are generally two classes: Muscovite and Biotite). Mica is reasonably brittle (very flake-like) and not typically found in large chunks like that, from the picture, it appears more like weathered quartz. And that ammolite is actually worth more than diamond, for the high grade stuff anyway. I believe there are only two places in the world that it is found high grade and in abundance, one is near lethbridge. Nice samples for sure!

BBT, he is flat out 100% a-hole...in my 33 years, I've met a lot of jerks and this guy takes the cake. The neighbors on the sides of him have already had problems with him. On one side they agreed to pay half, then said there was tons of stuff wrong with it and refused to pay. I may apply to encroach on the easement, just want to know what my options are legally. Thought I could paint a really nice mural on his side...use your imagination...

That's what the lady from the city said too...I did contact a surveying company, the guy is going to get back to me monday...just wanted a legal standpoint.

Hey guys, I know I'm not on here often, but I've been a member for quite a while and I could use some help. So I want to build my fence at the back and my neighbor is having nothing to do with it, we even ended up in a shouting match last weekend. So I am going to build the fence on my dime, and was advised to move the fence in a bit to be entirely on my property. That would be great, but I have a Swale at the back of my property and the fence cannot be within 0.30m of the cement. As far as I can tell from my Real Property report, the property line sits 0.30m away from the Swale. When we built the house, I was told we had to have the Swale in our property (fence line on far side of Swale) and all other neighbors fence lines are across the Swale in line with this. So one option is to move the fence line over the Swale toward the house, this means I would technically have property on the other side of my fence, and it would look horrendous for the neighborhood as a whole. Option 2 is to build the fence on the property line without encroaching on the city easment, and technically would be on the property line. I was told by a lady at the city that if I have contacted him regarding the fence and he has refused to pay his part, then he forfeits his right to the shared property line (although his property still ends there) and the fence structure becomes my property entirely (ie. he can't touch it) because he was given the option to pay for half and he declined. I was talking to this lady about the Swale easment, and 'option 2' was provided from her personal experience. So, I am looking for confirmation (or at least to be set straight) by someone with a legal background (read: lawyer or bylaw expert) on option 2. I know that no matter what I do, I'll probably get threatened with going to court, so I just want to back up my actions before I go ahead with anything. Anyone that can help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Oh boy, here we go....

We were at BBQ Galore last week and ended up choosing the Napoleon 450 with the infrared rotisserie burner. That model also comes with the rotisserie and a cover (covers alone are like $80). Also, I know the one guy said the side burners are kinda bunk, but you can add a sear burner to this one which burns pretty hot and the grill is very close to the burner. I went with cast iron grill, more maintenance, but they retain heat better and I believe having a seasoned cast iron grill adds flavor you can't get with stainless grills (ever had scrambled eggs made in a cast iron skillet versus a teflon-coated pan?). If you're going stainless grill, make sure they are at least 9mm thick. The sales dude said that if you polled the entire staff there, you'd get 50% Napoleon, 50% Weber....I don't think you can go wrong either way, but I did like the fact that the Naploeon is made in Canada!

#99 (From fishing with dad when I was young) Always carry at least two Eat-More's in your creel (now it's just nostalgic)

Isn't poo considered solid waste? If I can't poop in my toilet, where can I poop?

Wow, Flyfishwx, your an EDITon the boards, I hope I never run into you on the water...I would imagine you're usually fishing with x1 too...oh, no that's not right using you're logic....x0 then??? I think what you meant is +1....as in ADD one to the original comment. Not that it even matters...good riddance, please don't come back next winter, who needs people like that here?

Good idea...that means I should probably print of 20 copies or so...Think it would count if you somehow made it into a .pdf and put it on your iPhone?

Ha ha, I bet that dude s#$t in his pants.....

Dude, that sounds pretty much like what's I'm looking for, is it fairly light?....Did you build it yourself then? or did you have someone build it for you?

I have heard that about Switch rods...I think I mainly want the extra length for getting the rod out past ice shelves and then a little more casting oopmph...which is why I was considering overlining the rod I have (at least for now) So with the 40+ would you overline the 6wt with a 7wt line still? Also with that line, is it just the head and you have to get your own running line? or is it all in one?