Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 25/11/2014 13:45

Just a twist in the story Fresh the final chapter will remain the same.

[sancler] 25/11/2014 13:44

I am less confident than some others that there could be no valid objection or that any objection is bound to fail simply on the basis that all relevant issues have already been dealt with by the Hearing Examiner.

I am pretty sure I could frame a valid objection which would, absent any compromise solution, go to a hearing. I am, by the way, a lawyer (now retired) so used to doing this sort of thing albeit in the UK rather than the US and in an entirely different subject area.

I have no interest in doing so as I am a substantial holder here and share the general wish that the water permit should be granted as soon as possible.

So far, I kept my doubts to myself because I had no wish to give any potential objector ideas that s/he may not already have had. But in case anyone is interested I will post the details once the objection deadline date has passed.

[pcjoe] 25/11/2014 13:34

ACT - " very amusing" - I smell your hand behind the objection old chap - Maybe you just don't like water!

[naphar] 25/11/2014 13:16

It's not a late objection, it's well within the time line given.

[woolybanana] 25/11/2014 12:36

Is there a precedent for this type of late objection? Is it possible to use this objection as a means of appealing points from the earlier decisions? Have water rights ever been denied at this stage? Just a few thoughts.

[freshvoice] 25/11/2014 12:09

At every stage we are told all is well then it always seems to go the unexpected route.

:-((

[rhwillcoll] 25/11/2014 12:08

Thanks superg for your thoughts re manipulation, and you may well be
correct. On the other hand, 500,000 shares have already changed hands this
morning. It could be a technique to release shares from PIs at a lowish price, by creating uncertainty. So, one could say the aim has been achieved. I'm not saying this has happened, only that it may have happened.

Like you, I am certain that we will be awarded the permit at a fairly early
stage. All boxes ticked.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 25/11/2014 11:22

This is very amusing.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 11:17

rh

Possibly they did but unlikely, had the share price taken off in anticipation of the award of the permit, then maybe there was something to be gained by doing that.

The fact is the price rose last week and shorts closed. They would have wanted a higher price to have another go.

There is very little to be gained on heavy shorting at this level but losses could be significant if it went wrong. The status of the permit won't necessarily affect any water talks that may be ongoing.

The rns saying all was well on iodine rather scuppered the lies put out prior to that news.

So just my opinion that it's highly unlikely. However I don't think for a minute that they are not capable of such actions.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 11:10

The paragraph below helps explain why it says 'may' go to a hearing. So the 90% don't go to a hearing even when valid, may well be correct.

Regardless what all think of apparent obsessive research to clarify facts I think it pays off to understand what you are investing in. I don't understand why some invest in shares where they have very little understanding of it. That happens to be one of the rules Warren Buffet sticks by

'Private agreements between applicants and objectors which provide for the withdrawal of objections and include conditions that must be met by an applicant or objector may not be recognized by the department or included in a granted application. The department will only place a condition on a granted application if the department determines the condition is necessary to meet the application criteria.'

[rhwillcoll] 25/11/2014 11:04

If an objection has occurred in order to manipulate/short the Iofina share price, then we will very likely be able to find that out. We should then as shareholders report the matter to the relevant UK authorities for the appropriate action to be taken. There are UK laws in place to prevent manipulation taking place. It shouldn't be too difficult to find out who is behind this, if it is vexacious. If it originates from the UK (or if there are any future objections originating from the UK), then we will very likely be able to trace.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 11:01

So the headless chickens point seems the only valid point at present.

However I do get their mentality as they think that other headless chickens are going to sell first thing and take the price down, so they sell. Some think 'I'll wait to see if others sell, then sell when they start.

One thing is for sure it's shifted a few shares that were in for a quick hit trade, so some weak hands have folded, on what could be a complete bluff.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 10:44

In fact having read this bit, it's highly unlikely it has been deemed valid at this time.

They record objections on the form as and when they receive them and use the postmark date. It seems they received it yesterday.

Based on the below they will need time to review it. Note it says 'may' proceed to hearing not WILL.

10) An objection that is deemed correct and complete and valid pursuant to 85-2-308(3) and (6), MCA, may proceed to an administrative hearing. The administrative hearing will be limited to the criteria objected to in the objection. An objector may participate in the administrative hearing only on the criteria to which the objector specifically objected and which is determined valid by the department.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 10:30

On balance I don't think it is a valid objection just because it has appeared on the website. The postmark date assumption seems to be correct as detailed below. So I suspect they only got the form on Friday or yesterday, most likely first looked at yesterday in any case.


(8) Upon receipt of an Objection to Application or response to an Objection Deficiency Notice, the department will place the envelope postmark date on the form. If the postmark date is not legible, the department will assign the date as two days prior to the department's receipt of the objection form.


The bureau have to check through it and we know how slow they are.

(11) The department will mail notice to the objector of the Objection to Application of any deficiencies in the objection. The objector must address the information requested in the Objection Deficiency Notice and must have the response postmarked or hand delivered to the department within 15 calendar days from the date on the Objection Deficiency Notice.

It is unlikely the objection has been reviewed by the bureau yet.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 10:04

Cyber

Can I ask that you don't do this again in the future :-)


cyberbub 24 Nov'14 - 16:36 - 27083 of 27120 0 0

Wow - not a single post today!

[superg1] 25/11/2014 09:57

CK

The water court guide book. listed under the objection process.

SECTION FIVE: SETTLING OBJECTIONS

Just because you filed an objection to a water right or your claim received an objection, this does not mean you are involved in a fierce court battle over water rights. Ninety percent of all objections are settled without a hearing.

Just to add, it will take a bit of reading to consider whether the above is relevant in this case.

The amount of forms and legislation to read in onerous, such is the nature of law.

The query is whether that point relates to pre 1982 cases (it's a long story)

[superg1] 25/11/2014 09:53

Roundup

It can still be valid. It doesn't matter if they copy the bureau word for word. It's a bureaucracy gone mad, they have a right to object.

However the chances of an identical objection having any impact is zero. The chances of new points having an impact is very very slim.

It's a finite objection criteria. Items 1 to 3 are pointless as it's the Missouri. 4 and 5 are what the bureau raised.

If they didn't have possessory interest they wouldn't have been able to apply in the first place.


1. Physical Availability – Provide facts showing why water cannot be considered physically available.

2. Legal Availability – Provide facts showing why the water cannot be considered legally available.

3. Adverse Effect – Provide facts showing how this proposed use will adversely affect your water right.

4. Diversion Works – Provide facts showing why the construction of the project may not be adequate.

5. Beneficial Use – Provide facts showing why the use (purpose) or flow rate and volume may not be
considered beneficial.

6. Possessory Interest – Provide facts showing the applicant does not have possessory interest in the place of use.

[monkeymagic3] 25/11/2014 09:51

THIS FORM MUST BE RECEIVED OR POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE THE DEADLINE SPECIFIED IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE.

[captain_kurt] 25/11/2014 09:49

Super where did you get the 90% figure that don't go to a hearing from ?

[cyberbub] 25/11/2014 09:42

Agreed. Or if it is validated, there will be a relatively quick adjustment or compromise that will sort it out.This 'postmark' thing, I would be very surprised if someone could post an objection letter on the 1st Dec and that counted... surely a deadline is a deadline for receipt?! Otherwise someone could post an objection from Africa on 1st Dec and it might only arrive in January. I refuse to believe the 'postmark' argument unless someone can show it to us in black and white.NAI

[superg1] 25/11/2014 09:42

Richi

There is no reason why it should take a long time. The IOF team are ready to go as they have already sorted all of their evidence.

In the case of the objection the objector has to provide evidence up front to make it a valid objection.

The law prevents any other matters being introduced at a later date. So whatever is on the form is what is in play. There are no twists and turns in the future or second guessing what it may be about.

90% don't go to a hearing. If it's a matter already covered in the last hearing a further hearing would be pointless.

Raising the same point does not invalidate the objection but it's already proven in favour of IOF.

Thinking on the sells this morning I bet the MMs came looking at the BB to work out why sells were coming in as there is no news out there to give them a clue.

That's not fanciful assumptions about what they do, as in a market maker in an interview stated they do monitor BB's from time to time.

I believe good old Deakin/Lloyd did a masterful job at one point behind the scenes to get the move they wanted on the share price

[roundup] 25/11/2014 09:34

From what superg1 has said, the points which would support a valid objection have already been dealt with at the hearing. It is therefore highly unlikely that this objection will be given valid status.

[orslega] 25/11/2014 09:28

nothing surprises me about the iofina roller coaster we have experienced - my suspicious mind thinks this is the last chance saloon attempt to get these lower...

....agree with comments about current market cap, crazy....

[superg1] 25/11/2014 09:20

Engelo

There is no mileage in identifying the relevant points until they are are a matter in play.

EG

From the water laws and guidance on objections.

'Just because you filed an objection to a water right or your claim received an
objection, this does not mean you are involved in a fierce court battle over water rights. Ninety percent of all objections are settled without a hearing.'

So going back to the original hearing IOF have already covered and met the the criteria.

The bureau raised points on two of the listed criteria.

Here is the result from the water hearing.

The adequate means of diversion point, contested by the water bureau.

43. Applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed means of diversion, construction, and operation of the appropriation works are adequate for the proposed beneficial use of 3622 acre-feet. § 85-2-311(1)(c), MCA. (FOF 35-39)


Beneficial use

48. Based on the information within the application, and information supplied at the hearing, the Department finds that the criteria for beneficial use have been met.


As there has already been a hearing it may well be that the IOF case won't go to another hearing. A hearing date may get listed if it's a valid objection but that won't mean a hearing will happen.

IOF will know what the objection is about as the objector is obliged to inform them and send a copy. If they didn't I assume it's invalid.

It could well be a point already proven as listed above, and IOF may well point that out if they do releases new about it.

I don't think news will come short term as there is no point saying all ok it's a pony objection, only for another objection to arrive next in 3 days time.

So in my opinion there probably won't be an rns on the topic until the objection period including the post-mark point has ended.

They could well release an rns of course, and then do another for any further objections.

[engelo] 25/11/2014 09:01

SG: thanks for spelling out the position :-) Anyone else remember JP's 90 days?