Jump to content

Sparkplug

Members
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Sparkplug last won the day on April 1 2019

Sparkplug had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

75 Good

1 Follower

About Sparkplug

  • Rank
    Mayfly

Recent Profile Visitors

680 profile views
  1. Do we not have any pure strains (of either species) in some of our lakes? Thinking about Job for the WS's, maybe Rawson...and aren't there lakes in Banff that have Yellowstones in them (how "pure", I do not know...)
  2. The proximity of this stretch of the river to the Bearspaw Dam makes me wonder whether there are any river temp effects driven by the dam operation. I believe Bearspaw is a bottom-draw dam, so when dam discharges are high, this would be relatively cold water. If dam discharge rates are adjusted significantly over a short time period (as we saw last week?) does this introduce any sort of a thermal shock to the river, particularly just downstream from the dam as a localized effect? Of course some dead fish in the Bowness stretch could be due to a wide range of factors, but given the proximity to the dam, one has to ponder.
  3. Ginger, I see no harm whatsoever in voicing objection to the recent policy change. IMHO it is unlikely that this gov't will reverse it, but raising an objection to it now might make them think twice in the future before making such changes without appropriate consultation or notice. Or not. One angle you may want to explore is whether this policy change stands to impact First Nations. A big part of the fuss/delays/uncertainty over the TransMountain expansion was driven by inadequate consultation with FN's. The good ol' Official Opposition may be another place to go to raise a stink over the policy change (particularly if through FN's or other stakeholders inadequate consultation can be clearly illustrated). I don't recall hearing much (if anything) from Rachel and crew on the policy change, at least thus far. Rachel is now on about the parks eliminations, so maybe there's some common ground there with them. While taking a run at the policy change is fine, efforts should in parallel be made to organize effective opposition/intervention into the regulatory approval process of this particular mine, should the company proceed with making such an application.
  4. Agree wholeheartedly on proactively getting regulations put in place. On many stillwaters in the province we have speed restrictions, as well as fuel/motor-type restrictions. Seems to me like a 10 km/h, electric motors only restriction on moving waters should do the trick. To a non-jet boat/power boat guy like me, if a person wanted to take this sort of a jet boat out to rip around in, why not go to one of AB's numerous large lakes to do so? Seems a great deal safer to me.
  5. AER regulates coal mining in respect of the Coal Conservation Act, which is primarily with respect to responsible/efficient coal resource recovery. An environmental approval under EPEA must still be obtained. For this mine (and any open pit mine over 45,000 tonnes/year production), it is mandatory that a provincial environmental impact assessment under EPEA be conducted. The project will also have to be assessed under the federal Impact Assessment Act. All these regulatory agencies (AB Environment, AER, federal Impact Assessment Agency) coordinate to ensure no overlap. In the past when both federal and provincial assessments are called for (as would be the case here), a joint review panel has often been struck with one of the agencies leading the review on behalf of the others. Not sure how it will work now under the new federal IAA, as there haven't really been any projects put forth subject to that yet, but will probably be in line with this historical joint review process. Bottom line is that a proposal like this will be subject to a full environmental impact assessment with both federal and provincial agencies involved. An EIA involves, from the getgo, stakeholder consultation and input as to the terms of reference for the EIA/joint review panel. That would be the ideal time to ensure that fisheries related matters are prominent and baked into the terms of reference for the EIA.
  6. Environmental approval of the development, and administration/enforcement of the operating license (if granted), is with Alberta Environment. This project would require both an Alberta Environment provincial approval (under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act), as well as a federal assessment under the new Impact Assessment Act.
  7. So...apart from participation the regulatory review process, how do you propose "to kill this abomination" otherwise?
  8. The rescission of the coal policy means that Category 2 lands are now available for coal leasing, and only that - leasing. There are a great number of coal leases in this province that have been in effect for decades, that have seen absolutely no development activity on them at all. Coal rights leasing is different in AB from O&G in that regard, in that in O&G, you have to undertake certain activities (e.g., drilling) to continue to hold licenses/leases. With coal, as long as you pay your annual rental fees, you can sit on a coal lease indefinitely. Should this company wish to actually advance this development, they still have to go through the Alberta Environment approval process, and, for a mine of this size, now the new Federal Impact Assessment Act (yes, the infamous "Bill C-69" that has ruffled so many Alberta feathers on other fronts of late). Thus, likely a joint review panel process. The first step in this review process is stakeholder consultation to define the terms of reference for the impact assessment. To my mind, the angling/outdoors community is much more likely to have a meaningful say/effect by providing input into that review process, when/if the time comes, rather than try to get the current government to do anything with respect to this coal policy rescission. This looks like an Australian penny stock mining company, whose value trades on news with respect to their "projects" - that sword cuts both ways, i.e., negative news (e.g., tough going on environmental approvals, due to credible stakeholder opposition) has a way of causing these sorts of things to go away...
  9. Higa's SOS has worked well for me
  10. Scott Radian is a cannon. Can get the 4 wt in either 8' 6", 9' or 10'.
  11. Would like to think that fishermen/women are model social distancers...
  12. Beauvais Lake is a nice spot, with a decent campground, and trails around the lake with opportunities to fish from shore.
  13. Nice ties, Wayne. My kids used to just slay the walleye and pike on a Rapala X-Rap in the "Purple Ghost" finish - pearl white belly, yellow sides, and purple on the top/back. So I tried tying up some Clousers and other flies (e.g., big Zonkers) with the same color pattern...and they worked very well, surprise, surprise. Don't know what it is about that purple and yellow combination, but the fish sure do seem to like it.
  14. Fishteck, good note. There is no suggestion that the total amount of "hydro power generation", i.e., MWh of electricity generated, will increase upon PPA expiry. Rather, once the PPA's expire and the units are more fully under TransAlta's operational/commercial control, it is expected that volatility in flows will increase - i.e., more jacking around with the operation of these units in response to the hourly power pool price,which means more short-term volatility in flows (i.e., daily, or over several days). Your point about the available water supply is correct, in terms of capping total electricity generated. But there's plenty of room for TransAlta to screw with flows to control when that electricity is generated (and just as importantly, when it is not). On the comment about conversion to "run-of-river" for some or all of these hydro units, I don't buy that in the least. There is no technical reason why the dams could not be operated simply for flood protection and downstream water management reasons only - and as a result of this operating regime, whatever water is flowed through each dam on any day (with those operating parameters) generates power, to whatever amount and whenever that may be. The Oldman dam operates in that matter - AEP controls the flows for water management reasons, and Atco simply generate whatever power they can from those flows as they are available. No reason why the Bow/Kananaskis hydro units couldn't be operated in exactly the same way.
×
×
  • Create New...