Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bobbyshilling] 30/11/2014 17:09

SG, the amount of research that you have done and posted for the benefit of others is phenomenal, and greatly appreciated by many here, myself included. I have looked at the water permits and it is indeed complicated, that is why there are so many different questions and interpretations on this bb alone; I'm just grateful for your contributions - keep them coming!

[sancler] 30/11/2014 16:54

soperg1

Fine. It was an easy mistake to make. It didn't really matter.

My point was simply that "a lot of time spent checking and rechecking the facts, before they are ever posted" will not necessarily exclude mistakes and, conversely, the existence of a mistake does not preclude "a lot of time spent checking and rechecking the facts, before they are ever posted".

Matter closed, so far as I'm concerned.

[superg1] 30/11/2014 16:23

I did add the point about whether it was relevant for cases post a particular year indicating that it wasn't absolutely confirmed.

The fact remains that it seems most objections don't go to hearings. Also that the process is record a hearing date for valid objections the immediately following it being deemed valid regardless of whether a hearing will ever take place. Objectors and applicants can sort out any concerns without a hearing.

Looking at the water court hearings list was a mistake but as they seem to show everything on the website I thought that was the protocol for a hearing.

They are both called hearindgs whether it's in bureau offices or a water court.

The only obvious difference is in one case it's a hearing examiner and the other a water master.

In the case of a valid objection it seems it goes to the hearing examiner.

Yes it's complicated.

[neddo] 30/11/2014 14:29

even if it didn't , the shale would be their as a warning to opec and the rest that it can start up when they get to greedy?

[woodpeckers] 30/11/2014 12:40

Interesting article about oil prices.



“We think the world has plenty of oil at $US90 going forward,” Morse writes, “but supply may be less adequate on a sustainable basis at prices much below $US70…even though on a shorter-term basis, US shale production can continue to grow robustly even at lower prices.”

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 30/11/2014 12:01

Sancler,

You'll find you can drive a water truck through most of Graham's 'research'.

But if you're black and get too far ahead he'll quietly ban you.

I suspect your days here are numbered.

(the 1st clue is his sneering patronising tone...)

Oh he's black himself now, so can't ban?

[sancler] 30/11/2014 11:07

superg1

>>
While posts may be long at times, there is a lot of time spent checking and rechecking the facts, before they are ever posted.
<<

So could you please explain why you spent time watching the Water Court hearing lists and, as recently as a few days ago, were quoting from Water Court statistics and guidance on objections when the Water Court has nothing to do with this application? The Water Court deals with claims and objections relating to existing water rights. Atlantis' application concerns the grant of a new right and so is handled by the DNRC, supervised by the District Court.

The system is complicated. A mistake is easily made. It's unlikely to have any practical effect on the outcome that we're all interested in.

The criteria for grants of new water rights by the DNRC is also complicated. I made a mistake. I explained why I made a mistake. And I apologised.

I apologise again for boring you.

[superg1] 30/11/2014 08:10

Bobby

On the flip side it means a lot of long posts with some rather boring points of law.

As they say knowledge is power, but it seems in all shares 90% of investors have very little understanding of what they are invested in.

So best to stick to reiterating available facts which is the whole point of this particular thread.

While posts may be long at times, there is a lot of time spent checking and rechecking the facts, before they are ever posted.

[bobbyshilling] 29/11/2014 18:28

naphar, thanks again, also your last point SG.

I have quite a few of these shares, (for me anyhow), and am looking to add yet again, as I believe we are on the cusp of everything coming together in the next 12 months - my word it's been a bumpy old ride! The timescale for the eventual award of the water permit is now fast approaching - if all goes well, and at this stage I am just re-checking everything and want to be as sure as I can.

I reckon though that is similar to most people, and that is why I appreciate the input here, (even though some is negative), but if information can be backed up, that is the key to sorting the wheat from the chaff. I am all for open discussion, but there is nothing worse than the one liners that appear, who try to sow doubt, with no hard evidence to to back them up. Still, that kind of thing happens on many bbs, iof is no different in that respect.

[superg1] 29/11/2014 17:31

The point there is the hearing examiner awarded it.

On the point of could there be another hearing, then yes there could.

If someone had a valid objection, which means they hit a point on the list then it could go to a hearing. However it does state they have to supply substantial evidence.

The bonus (if we can call it that) is that it has already been through a hearing, and we can read all the evidence.

Another hearing on any of the points is just a reiteration of the evidence.

In another twist, an objector could tick every box and object on countless points, but the bureau determines which points are valid.

Only issues deemed as valid can be contested in a hearing. Valid doesn't open the doors for a slanging match and mud slinging on all fronts, just points considered to be valid.

Happens all the time here re nimby, 'rights to light' and 'views' in planning objections, there is no such valid objection viable on that front.

[sancler] 29/11/2014 17:25

Cyberbub

It's not quite that simple. No matter how many pumps there are the maximum flow rate is fixed at 5 cubic feet per second. Three pumps is enough to achieve that. And that appears to be enough to satisfy the "adequacy" criterion for permit purposes.

But for the depot to get to get as much as it can, within the permit limit, actually to sell, the three pumps have to go virtually flat out all the time. The flow rate limit means that a shortfall in one period cannot be made up in a different period. So, using "adequacy" in a more general sense, a fourth pump might be a good idea. Then, if one of the three has to be turned off (e.g. for maintenance) the maximum flow rate can be kept up by using the "spare". But that's not a permit issue. That's a commercial/engineering issue. Does what might be lost in terms of sales make it worthwhile having a fourth pump which will sit idle for much of the time?

It was confusing these two sorts of "adequacy" that led me astray.

[cyberbub] 29/11/2014 16:51

Surely if there is some doubt whether 'x numbers of pumps can deliver the stated amount of water, we just need to state that we will increase the number of pumps?

[naphar] 29/11/2014 16:03

PS.
It will be overwritten with a new date if there is a valid injection, although it may never go to a hearing.

[naphar] 29/11/2014 16:01

Bobby
he hearing box isn't a typo and shouldn't be blank.
15 July is the date we had the hearing that already happened before the PDTG.

[bobbyshilling] 29/11/2014 15:22

Thank you. Re-assuring, with your background, along with the great detective work carried out by SG and one or two others.

[bobbyshilling] 29/11/2014 14:44

Sancler, so your concern was with the pumps, which you have now addressed. In summary then, is it correct to assume that you are saying you cannot find any points, (from the information available), that would merit a hearing?

[sancler] 29/11/2014 14:29

In post 27134 I said that the that view there could be no valid objection that might merit a hearing because all relevant points had already been decided in Atlantis’ favour was perhaps too optimistic. Here’s why I said that.

The PDTG fails to address the question of whether the three river pumps can reasonably be expected to operate at 96% of their rated capacity for 24 hours per day for 365 days per year. That is essential for the amount covered by the application to be achieved [details in post 26166]. On the other hand the PDTG expressly envisages the possibility of the pumps being turned off: “The tanks will be capable of storing a total of 10.74 AF and will have safety overflows that pipe water to an overflow pond if pumps do not shut off when the tanks are full”. So, even leaving aside any possibility of downtime for maintenance, breakdown, power outage or whatever, the PDGT itself contains facts sufficient to show (as required by the rules for objections) “why the construction of the project may not be adequate”: note the word “may”.

On further investigation, however, I have changed my view on that. First, “adequate̶1; in this context does not mean that all the water must be physically deliverable. Rather, it means the works “must be reasonably effective, i.e., must not result in a waste of the resource”. Second, although I have been unable to access the PDTG concerned, it appears that a grant was made in a case “which would require the Applicant’s pumps to run constantly throughout the year”. That reliance on such continuous running might be questionable in engineering terms does not mean that the system is not “adequate̶1;.

I should have followed those details through before claiming that “I am pretty sure I could frame a valid objection which would, absent any compromise solution, go to a hearing”. I didn’t. Sorry.

[bobbyshilling] 29/11/2014 14:25

Ahh, OK Zendo, thanks. I hadn't seen that page for a while. I understand it now; they may as well have just left it blank really.

[zendo102] 29/11/2014 14:17

Bobbyshilling - no, see post 27331. A hearing has been scheduled when an advance (i.e. future) date appears in that box.

[bobbyshilling] 29/11/2014 12:58

naphar, thank you for the link.

Thanks Sg. I see we have a hearing box date of 7/15/2014??? Obviously a slip up.

[superg1] 29/11/2014 07:35

I've been tracking other permits




In this case the public notice period was due to end on 10th November. An objection came in and eventually a hearing date was put in, that tells me the it's valid. That hearing date is Thursday 5th Feb 15.

That puts the date just inside the 90 day rule and is an action carried out by the bureau, not a date provided by the applicant or objectors.

Post the objection date, the applicant and objector communicate, in most cases resulting in no hearing at all. It's more or less a protocol system, if you want to discuss matters with an applicant, the objection process is the only way to do it.

[superg1] 29/11/2014 07:22

Naphar

If an objection is valid they put an advance date into the hearing box.

That point is in guidance notes.

MM3
At 2p salary a week. it's a bit embarrassing to expect anything of him. On that front IOF seems unique most other companies look after themselves not the shareholders.

I'd feel far more comfortable if they announced they were now taking a salary.

If G and G had still been in charge I'd have been gone long ago.