Smitty

Got a new Chevy Colorado this past July. Would like to buy some winter tires. Anyone got recommendations of brand and model? How about places to buy (Costco vs a Kal Tire vs a Fountain Tire). Does anyone like studded tires. One friends sings their praises. I'm located in Edmonton, if you're recommending a tire shop. Thanks! Mike

Winston, permit me an aside; You ask who Taco is? And yet, I've asked you the same question a couple of times, yet you choose to remain anonymous. Interesting. Mike

Not about "not getting baseball", its about not getting the whole "epicness" of that inning. Emotions ran high, simple as that. I can't know for certain, but I'm willing to bet all the change in my pocket against anyone else's that that inning was one of the most emotional innings of baseball ever played in the MLB, in terms of pendulum swings. I would not expect those players from either sides to react like pulse-less zombies. Oh, and I call BS on the Rangers. I'm sure if the positions were reversed, one of their batters / players would have celebrated...exuberantly.

Just like when Fleury scored on the Messier turnover in game 6 years ago, and slid on his knees halfway down Rexall. Passionate, or bush league arrogance? Oh, fun fact; Tikkanen scored 3 in game 7 at the Saddledome to win the series. I was fine with with the bat flip; anyone who has a problem with it clearly doesn't "get" the tension, the drama, and the high running emotions of a 53 minute inning. Oh, and I think the baseball Gods were fine with it; why else would have there have been a staggering 3 consecutive errors by Ranger fielders?

Lot's of guys work in the oil and gas industry here. I'd like to know what I'm talking about (or at least pretend to) when it comes to something like royalty revenue in this province. So I've copied and pasted this -yes, from Facebook, of all places- and just looking for comments. Essentially, the post is divided into 2 parts; (1) a factual description of royalties work and (2) commentary on pipelines and ethical oil. So, commentary aside - just for the moment, cause I know how fun commentary is - are the facts in the 1st half of the post correct? I'm just trying to vet what he's saying. It sounds right to me, but I can't claim any expertise in this area. Feedback welcome. I'd really like to learn how the actual, factual nuts and bolts of this works. Here is the text: "I am writing this post in an attempt to inform & educate anyone who wants to understand the basics of how the Alberta government receives royalty money from Oil and Gas production in our province. I will also explain how Alberta has lost BILLIONS of dollars in royalties over the last 5 or so years (remember this is money that could have paid for new schools, healthcare, social programs, or “insert government funded program of your choice”). Lastly I will touch base on the impact this discussion has for all of Canada, and what we can ALL do about it. I will try to keep this high level, but provide enough detail to help understand the basics. So first – The Oil and Gas industry is divided into 3 main sectors: 1. UPSTREAM -Raw production from wells or open-pit mining. (this is the only area where Alberta gets paid a royalty) 2. MIDSTREAM -Transporting raw production or refined products – pipelines/trains/trucks/barge/storage tanks, etc.. 3. DOWNSTREAM -Refining of hydrocarbons (Oil and Gas) in to end-use-products– gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil, lubricants, this list goes on and on. In regards to royalties – Alberta only receives a royalty on raw production that takes place in the Upstream Sector. This is because the majority of Oil and Gas reserves in Alberta (80%) are located on Crown-Land (the government and people of Alberta own the surface/mineral rights). We allow companies to invest money (billions) and establish their operations here to extract that Oil and Gas. We do however set a specific percentage (royalty) that companies must pay to us for every barrel of oil that is produced (I’m really just going to focus on Oilsands because that is where the majority of our Oil and Gas royalty money is generated from. We also receive royalties from natural gas, crude oil and liquids ). There are two basic formulas for Oilsands royalties: PRE PAYOUT - this is when a company has not yet recovered their initial investment. While the company is still working to make their money back on their startup costs, we charge a royalty between 1-9% of their gross revenue. This percentage is dependent on the price of oil (the higher the price of oil, the higher the percentage we take). POST PAYOUT – at this point the company has recovered their initial investment, so now we (Alberta) take between 25-40% of the company’s net profits. Again – this percentage is dependent on the price of oil. The higher the price of oil, the higher the royalty percentage we take. This is a VERY HIGH LEVEL explanation of royalties, but I hope it at least helps you to understand the basics about how we make money as a province from our Oil. To give you an idea – in 2014 and early 2015, Alberta was paid approx. 8.3 BILLION in royalty money (see link in comments for breakdown). That pays for a lot government funded services. Now – I mentioned that I would also explain how Alberta has lost BILLIONS in royalty revenue over the last 5 or so years. I think many of you will be very shocked to hear the following facts: Alberta oil production has been growing quite fast over the past 15 years. In the year 2000 we were producing approx. 600K barrels/day. Now in 2015 we are producing around 2.3 Million barrels /day. That’s almost a 400% increase in production! Unfortunately, while we have increased production, we have NOT built the infrastructure (pipelines) to help transport this increased production to end markets. I’ll try to provide an analogy to make my point: you know how at the end of the year when a clothing store has excess inventory, they throw a massive clear-out sale to get rid of their excess inventory? (They have too much inventory, so they sell it at a discount to get rid of it). This is essentially what is happening to Alberta Oil! We have more product than we can fit into pipelines, so we sell it at a significant discount to help get rid of it. The price discount applied is anywhere from 10-40%! Remember, we get paid a royalty based on gross revenue (pre-payout), or net profit (post payout). ALBERTA IS LOSING ROYALTY DOLLARS BECAUSE OUR OIL IS LANDLOCKED, CAUSING A DRAMATIC DISCOUNTED WHEN WE SELL IT! That 8.3 Billion in royalty revenue I quoted should have been substantially greater, but we sold our oil at a discount because we don’t have the infrastructure to ship it to end markets. I hope this makes sense how we have truly taken away money from ourselves by challenging pipelines (the safest method of transporting oil, a product we ALL use every single day). I don’t think that many people understand this. This discussion of royalties and pipelines has implications for ALL of Canada as well. If what I have mentioned above does not move you, I hope the following facts will: Canada has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world, yet we DO NOT provide our entire Country with oil!! EASTERN CANADA IMPORTS MILLIONS OF BARRELS of Oil every year from countries like SAUDI ARABIA, NIGERIA, IRAQ, VENEZUELA, and ALGERIA. People claim to fight pipelines in Canada because they are protecting human rights and the environment. Yet we’re completely okay with importing oil from overseas countries that have atrocious human rights violations, and next to no environmental regulations compared to Canada……this is mind boggling and completely illogical. Again – I don’t think that many people understand this. By protesting pipelines (specifically Energy East), Canadians are saying they would rather import oil from countries with atrocious human rights violations, and little to no environmental regulations compared to Canada (taking away jobs from Canadians and losing additional income tax). And back to royalties – by protesting pipelines we are losing BILLIONS in royalty dollars, because we can’t ship our products to end markets, so we sell it at a discount (which lowers the royalty we receive). If you’re a true environmentalist and humanitarian, you would push to buy ONLY CANADIAN OIL! Canada’s Oil industry has some of the tightest environmental regulations in the world! We’re also a world leader in renewable energy (which many people don’t realize). Please support Canada today and tell our governments (Federally and Provincially) to approve pipelines…..OR.... YOU COULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT FOREIGN OIL INTERESTS…..the choice is yours! Thanks for listening. Please like and share this post to help others understand the basics about this conversation. This topic has implications for all of Canada, regardless whether you work in the industry or not."

Wonder if Calgary Expo will invite Nile Creek back? Grapevine tell me there's another side to this story.

I'm going. Driving down from Edmonton on the 28th, coming home on the 29th. Anyone needing a ride from Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary can pm me. You'll have to arrange your own accommodations.

I'm actually considering going. Long drive for me, but perhaps worth sending a message. I think just the mere presence of a dozen to 2 or 3 dozen concerned anglers would say something. Not there to start s**t of course, just a silent, watchful, pissed off group of guys just showing up would be a pretty strong message. Smitty

Well GLoomis offered me the same thing Orvis did on their rods. Offered me an upgrade to a better line of rods for cheap. So I did it. However, unlike Orvis, which let me switch line class and model, GLoomis offered me only one choice. So I'm going to try out the new GLX Streamdance rod, I'll see if I like it. I'm not terribly inclined to go with GLoomis again, I'll see how this goes. Meanwhile, I await a response from Orvis and Redington (yes, aside from an awesome summer of travelling and fishing, I have had rotten luck with rods the past 2 months). Mike

Jayhad, all due respect, but there's a significant difference between more access points on the Bow versus a multi-billion dollar project. I can't say for sure, but I would guess your council is similar to ours when I say, councillors did listen to very loud public concerns about the Edmonton deal, because it was a huge deal, one way or another. The public perceptions and views were taken into account. Politicians generally do respond when the volume of public input is pretty significant, as it was in our case on this issue.

Well I love John Oliver, he feeds my fix as Colbert and Stewart move on., Every single one of his main story editorials have been b.r.i.l.l.i.a.n.t. Having said that, it would seem unquestionably I am in the minority here. I haven't really looked at Calgary's funding model, so my official stance as far as the Calgary deal goes is ignorance. But I will admit - and have no problem doing so - my unabashed support of the Edmonton revitalization model. While, from the outset, a cursory, shallow analysis would make it seem Katz has made off with the taxpayer golden goose, I supported Edmonton's project for 2 basic reasons. One, the entire public good is served by the overall entirety of the whole project. This would include several office buildings and a new entertainment district. I think the everyone benefits from a revitalized, vibrant downtown. Secondly, I think taxpayers will (a prediction here) end up awash in black ink as tax revenues pour in over the coming decades. So my support is based on every John Q citizen benefiting, not just Oiler fans, millionaire players, and a billionaire owner. My position is one that certainly entails more risk; it would have been easier just to say a knee jerk no and stumble our way through a relatively bleak downtown with little vision or planning. So it's a roll of the dice; if the generated tax revenues don't pan out than it could blow up in our faces. I decided to separate - long ago - the emotion of the "rich guy getting richer" jealousy type argument. He's a businessman whose mandate is make profits and negotiate favorable business deals. As long as the taxpayer has some skin and the game and has a better than good chance (my analytical opinion) of doing well tax revenue wise, I really don't care if Katz's net worth goes from1 to 2 billion. It's about the future of our city (I'm talking Edmonton) and having leaders that have guts and vision. I'll also point out that as a (former) fine arts teacher that I had no problem with tax payer dollars building new museums and art galleries too (and new sports field and recreational complexes), despite the fact that not every citizen enjoys these buildings. Yes, I know that there is a significant difference in that museums and galleries are not privately owned, my point being if tax dollars simply plow roads, fix potholes and remove snow, at what point do you say, I want a livable city and the people who run it should have a sense of vision of the city's future. That's also why I voted for Mandel 3 to 4 times. If Edmonton was run by the likes of say, Sun columnist Lorne Gunter, we would have nice roads, some police and fire halls, little public transportation, and whole lot of bleak, concrete grayness, and no place to gather for people to have a night out for some entertainment and fun. So, I say all that without being entirely cognizant of the minute, nitty gritty details of the Calgary deal as outlined now. I guess I am gently encouraging Calgarians to identify the negative pitbulls on their city council and use them to be the skeptical hardball negotiators to squeeze everything they can out of the Flames ownership. I think - despite Oliver's excellent editorial - Edmonton and Calgary could be exceptions to the generalized rule of stadium deals, as long as their elected representatives do an excellent job of advocating for taxpayer interests. Despite my support of the deal in principle, during negotiations I was cheering on the most negative "nellys" of Edmonton city council because I knew ultimately they were the ones that could help get the best deal for everyone. You don't want cheerleaders during negotiations. No go ahead, "flame" away, if you'll pardon the pun. Smitty

I spoke to Doc, there's been an issue with the Web service / IT-forum provider and it appears the forum is gone and there's no backup to restore. Stay tuned.

I was just there. I only caught cutts. Doesn't the poison affect all fauna, including aquatic insects and plants? Not surprised by this move though. Lamar watershed has "must kill" regs on it for non-native fish.

Ditto for the Edmonton area; Freeman, Berland, Embarrass have 1 to 2+ std deviations off the quartiles for low flows. They had the same issues as everywhere else; low snowpack and only some modest recent rain. Plus many of those foothill muskeg watersheds have no cold glacial sources. None. Those grayling and Athabasca rainbows should be left alone. There is no relief up north. I'll be heading back through southern Alberta coming from fishing with Rickr in BC this weekend. I'll be sure to keep updated with the flows and closures. I have one good relationship with a landowner down there on one of the major rivers I was planning to fish in AB, but I just may have to find alternate plans. I was in Waterton last weekend, couldn't believe how low it was, ditto for the Castle. We all saw this coming with the above average spring fishing due to low flows. No one should be surprised by this (at least not on this board). Guess we'll fish for carp, pike, walleye, lake whitefish, goldeye. Whatever. Or just paint the fence. Won't be long before cool fall weather comes and provides relief.

BurningChrome: I have an alternate point of view, but undoubtedly could be interpreted as elitist. No one needed to get on the ball with this forum, because, frankly, many here were already well aware of the issue and are responsible about their angling choices. I posted the advisory in a couple of places a couple of days ago, I really felt no need to do so here. FFC was one of the first forums that ever exposed me to this issue almost 10 years ago when I joined. A lot of the guys here are pretty much on top of the ball. But, I s'pose, it just never hurts to post anyways, so your point is well taken. Smitty

I'm sure some of you by now have seen this: https://www.facebook.com/AlbertaFishandWildlifeEnforcement/photos/a.1580892292169500.1073741828.1579802275611835/1619099108348818/?type=1&fref=nf I seriously want to show up at their trial and petition the judge for maximum fines and permanent revocation of their licenses.

Some of these choices baffle me, it terms of water quality of the lake and/or stocking them in lakes with a 5 limit. But I don't know as much as the bios.

Loved it!

Are we crossing wire here? By following the regs, the kids under 16 ARE allowed their own limit. They just don't need to purchase the license. In the scenario of a father and 2 kids going fishing at Chain Lakes, they are collectively allowed 15 fish. Smitty

Thanks BiggyJ, if enough of us are vocal about how we really feel, who knows? Maybe we can instruct the hard working folks at the local representative level to advocate for those fixes. I know the ATA did make teacher workload a major issue the last round, but I wish they would do more. -Mike

Jpinkster: Well, I'm about to "out" myself. Here's something that makes me a pariah in the staffroom at some schools and labels me with a scarlett letter with other teachers. But, deep breath, here it goes; I don't need a raise. I earn -choose your descriptive here- a decent to excellent middle class wage. The collective bargaining agreements are online, for public perusal. Just google "ATA collective bargaining agreements". Anyone can see that after 11 years, a full time teacher in the province pretty much makes 100K. Now add outstanding benefits. A well-funded pension. Of course, it's a tough job. Of course, due to workload, the majority of us have earned a raise. Yes, the same % of incompetent teachers exist as the do in other jobs and professions. The %'s are pretty much identical. They don't deserve a raise, and some of that minority, a tiny %, deserve firing. That soapbox is for another day. But here's what I'd offer to Ms. Notley: Freeze my salary. But please, for the love of God and all things holy Ms. Notley, please start fixing the system. 1. Please spend the money on the resources and supports we need. We need dedicated art, music, and phys-ed teachers. 2. We need the funding that comes with special needs kids and inclusive classrooms to be spent on more classroom aides. 3. We need the education department to stop treating our children as if they were guinea pigs to be experimented on with gonzo curriculum policies. 4. We need class sizes to be smaller so I can spend more than 78.934 seconds of individual attention on kids. 5. We need more than 90 minutes - per week!!!!! of prep time out of more than a 1000 minutes of instructional time. Some teachers don't even get 90 minutes...did I say this is per week? This is the biggest issue, by far. Teacher workload. Between technology demands, IPP (special needs kids), and differentiated instruction (modifying the lesson plan to suit 2-5 'types' of learners), this is THE issue. Teachers should have at least 60 minutes of prep time every day to deliver robust, well designed lessons. And that ain't happening. Should Rachel and the Notley Crue decide it really wants to truly and actually address those issues, and not give them the once over, passing glance disrespect like the previous government, then I say... ...you can freeze my salary for 5 years. But, the above just makes me a nutcase unfortunately. Though, I must say, more and more teachers are realizing that we can't have every. single. thing. I wish I lived in a utopia of "I want dollars for my raise and I want dollars for every fix for every single classroom issue". But I live in the real world. I am a public servant. I serve the public. I have to live in the reality of finite dollars, - dollars paid to the education system via taxes by everyone, including laid off oil workers who don't have the job security that I do - finite dollars that entails a choice. I understand that the department of education (and healthcare too) cannot exist as a giant black hole whose funding gravity siphons off huge percentages of the provincial budget. So I choose the latter; please Ms. Notley, fix our classrooms. I'd argue that the kids are the most valuable resource in this province. Think I should send that to the journal? I'd be a marked man. Oh well, life a moderate teacher who also owns a business. LOL Smitty

Just another perspective, from a jr/Sr high school teacher; we don't need every 19 year old to go to post-secondary. What we need more is for more curriculum beyond Calm 20 to teach the financial literacy skills to the 19 year olds so they aren't quite so stupid with their money. I don't really view the province has having a post-secondary enrolment issue in terms of numbers. Best to concentrate on keeping it affordable for those that want to go. Also, may I say or acknowledge that as a teacher, my job is quite related to the oil patch; whose kids do you think I'm teaching? Increased funding for education comes from increased #'s of kids, which come s from in-migration, and that comes from a healthy, robust economy. I voted for Notley because I am fed up of 44+ years of instability (as in yo-yo) funding for education and gonzo curriculum policies being tested like our kids were guinea pigs. Don't even get me started on the lack of funding for inclusive classrooms. Anyways, all that to say that yeah, I went "left" in this election, but I'm watching Rachel, I'm watching. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, hoping that she and the Notley Crue are actually (?) the most centrist, 'right wing' version of the NDP in the country. Time will tell. Smitty

Happy Birthday Murray!

Clive's Birthday? Happy Birthday Dryfly! Mike2

Bigdirty: I actually concur with your comment. Loved seeing Jim again on TV, and clearly the philosophy of show is less "how-to" and more of the "why" (to quote Jim). But, imho, I did find the slo-mo and especially the music a bit over the top dramatic. After all, I'm watching a fishing show, not Platoon or Wagnerian opera. Overall, I liked it, I do love the theme of exploration, I'm looking forward to the next show.