Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[spideyyy] 26/11/2014 08:18

Hi sg.thanks for your input.do you think IOF could play their trump card and use the swap rights with u.s fisheries?

[superg1] 26/11/2014 08:11

The beauty of the hearing already completed, is that the entire legal process and all the points supporting the case are listed.

Items 1 to 3 are irrelevant due to the facts in the document. Items 4 and 5 are proven well beyond what is required, there is no backward step available.

EG
An objection could be that the water isn't legally available, but they would have to prove that.

The data says 44 cfs is being used and over 5000 cfs is legally available. So a non starter. It's like that throughout the list of potential objection points.

[superg1] 26/11/2014 07:57

Semps/Tim and the bunch

As far as I'm aware the objection has simply been listed as and when it arrived, the date is the postmark not the date it arrived. It has not been assessed to see if it amounts to a valid objection.

Even if valid, objections can be withdrawn after chatting to the applicants to cover the objectors concerns.

Conditions can be agreed and then ratified by the bureau.

If the form is correct and complete and it's not valid it's binned. If not completed properly they return it to the objector pointing out the deficiencies with the onus on the objector to address the deficiencies or once again it is binned.

As you can see from the actual laws and details posted listing those along with the facts already presented at the previous hearing, this event is nothing other than inconvenient.

Just like the time when the bureau tried to contest it. The line here was that they would fail and the permit would be awarded. IOF have met all the legal requirements, to reject them would have put the every other existing permit at risk of being challenged. There is no discrimination option available, to not award the PDTG would have been unjustified discrimination against IOF and a breach of the laws in place.

You either meet the standard or you don't.

As Bob Shaver said on the local news in ND when the locals were up in arms over
a groundwater permit.

'If an applicant meets the criteria, then by law you have to award the permit'

[superg1] 25/11/2014 21:16

While on the topic there have been recent comments about ADVFN parting ways with those 'lot'.

[stevo2011] 25/11/2014 20:10

I agree eng I'm merely posting details of an article I read

[engelo] 25/11/2014 20:05

steve02011:

"they are looking into making changes to the way this can or can't be done going forward "

The rumour spreading industry is getting more and more widespread and sophisticated (even getting Harvard professor to help out as in the case of Blinkx.) It's clearly fraudulent although difficult to prove.

Even if the rumours are disproved the smell can hang over a company for years and afaics they have no redress.

Again afaics the regulatory authorities (and our friends the Nomads) are either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. I'd be delighted to be corrected though ;-)

[superg1] 25/11/2014 20:05

Amazing coincidences there re which shares they happened to short at times when apparent organised bashing appeared.

I doubt Gotham and friends will dig into that one lol.

Easy targets potentially as neither company has anything clearly tangible for investors to assess.

[stevo2011] 25/11/2014 17:08

I disagree the most exuberant posters are actually no longer posting here.

[elbillo] 25/11/2014 16:55

ACT some more than others, take the prize.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 25/11/2014 16:51

That maybe true, what's absolutely true is nearly everyone on here is always wrong.

Don't you think that's disgraceful?

[superg1] 25/11/2014 16:50

And if they put a little effort in they would know that the objection listed has not been reviewed to see if it is a valid objection. I'm sure of that.

Mind you the truth doesn't matter in their world. The truth is an inconvenience that spoils a good rumour.

[stevo2011] 25/11/2014 16:42

Tw and his minions haunt various Aim shares on these corridors of which a lot of their posting is unfounded and disgraceful

[superg1] 25/11/2014 16:31

Knowing IOF so well I can't take the guy seriously about anything. Met him, chatted to him, and I'll keep my thoughts on that off the BB as it wouldn't comply with ADVFNs T & C on posting.:-)

[engelo] 25/11/2014 16:28

Just to cheer us up TW has included IOF again in his 'going to hell in a handcart' podcast to-day, based on to-day's sharp share price falls. Not always the case, but he knows very little about IOF and has built up a real hatred of it for reasons unknown.

Manages to get through his 5 minute analysis without mentioning the word 'water'.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 16:04

EG

From the objection form

'Statute requires that an objector provide facts that explain how or why one or more of the application criteria cannot be met. If facts are not supplied, the objection cannot be deemed valid'

Eligible objectors

HOW DO YOU HAVE STANDING TO FILE THIS OBJECTION? -

A person has standing if his or her property, water rights, or interests would be adversely affected by the proposed appropriation. Explain your interest and how it would be adversely affected.


Interest won't include a short position :-)

[superg1] 25/11/2014 16:00

First the bureau looks at it to see if there are any deficiencies in the application, boxes not filled in etc. Then returns it to the objector to reply, if they don't it's binned.

It gets the same treatment as an application they check to see if it is correct and complete. Next comes the point of whether it's valid or not. That can include if it's a person that has a standing to object, so that gets rid of spurious rubbish.

It seems to me it arrives in the post, gets lodged as arrived, then goes onto the 'correctly completed' consideration. Then 'is it valid' on the criteria points.

I wouldn't call it an objection with merit, as it could be identical to issues raised by the bureau which makes it valid but it carries no weight as we have already had a hearing on those points.


If a future date goes in the hearing box then that may indicate it's considered valid. That doesn't necessarily mean there will be a hearing though.

[joeblogg2] 25/11/2014 14:48

Super, if the objection has no merit how soon will we find out? thks!!

[superg1] 25/11/2014 14:41

Point 4 and 5 were the ones contested by the bureau which failed. The details of that and the outcome are in the PDTG.

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.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 14:37

I won't bore you all with point 1 'physical' availability as the numbers there are 52 withdrawn with 600,000 available.

Thus points 1 and 2 are not even remotely in the game here. As you can see point 3 is dependent on points 1 or 2 being relevant, and they are not by a huge margin, and never can be.

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.

There are only 12 rights owners that could claim point 3, I doubt it is any of them.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 14:10

Just as a point to see if anyone reads the documents connected to their investment.

One main point raised is there is no way can someone claim their rights are affected as it's the Missouri.

That is covered in point 2 on the objection list

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


In the hearing this point was accepted by the bureau.

If you read the PDTG you would see that between 2571 cfs and 5755 cfs (cubic feet per second) are deemed legally available depending on which month you are in.

IOF's application is for 5 cfs.

At the peak usage rate, the entire rights downstream of IOF amount to 44 cfs.

All of the rights in play account for only 0.07% to 1.4% of the water legally available depending on which month you are in.

So it's highly unlikely, and a complete waste of time by the objector if they claim their rights are affected. There is at worst, 70 times the water legally available than existing rights.

[stevo2011] 25/11/2014 14:08

Next the person who objected will probably appear on this BB as well and probably also is a substantial holder in IOF

[woodpeckers] 25/11/2014 14:00

Interesting that Sancler feels it would be easy to "frame a valid objection", suggests that it is even more likely that that is what someone has attempted to do. Let's hope it is seen for what it is and is dismissed without need for a hearing.
Like SG I believe "the final chapter will remain the same" so it's just an annoyance for now which those lucky enough to have spare funds can make the most of.

[cyberbub] 25/11/2014 13:52

Pcjoe, I'd rather not smell ACT's hand LOL... It will be covered with unspeakables I imagine...

[danster4] 25/11/2014 13:50

Assuming there are no VALID objections and we don't go to a hearing, will we hear shortly after the 1st December still? Not sure if already covered today by anyone?