Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[roger melly] 02/12/2014 10:35

SuperG2
"So that date if my assumptions are right should be around 27th February. IOF have all of their evidence."
Are you saying you now expect it to go to a hearing? I thought you said previously that there were no valid grounds for objection?

[patrich2] 02/12/2014 10:29

Perhaps the poster who said the hearing date was set for July 2015 did not help, could have been a genuine mistake, or trying to get the price lower, in which case they have, who knows the company could be in talks with the objector right now

[atcozero] 02/12/2014 10:24

Sup" IOF have all of their evidence".......please could you expand?Many thanks

[roundup] 02/12/2014 10:14

Superg1. Yes, I understand that and I, with others, do thank you for all your work which is shared on this board.However, I am worried that the share price keeps on sliding downwards despite the fact we are now producing more iodine than ever before in the companies history. Also we are about to be granted a permit (sooner or later) which will be a tremendous boost to the potential growth of the company.

[superg1] 02/12/2014 10:10

Atco

Correct, but requires a new hearing isn't.

The reviewing officer in the DNRC is required to enter a date if they deem an objection valid. They submit a report identifying points they deem valid, enter a hearing date, and send details to the hearing examiner.

In theory they would put that date as far into the 90 days as possible. They have on another application.

So that date if my assumptions are right should be around 27th February. IOF have all of their evidence.

[atcozero] 02/12/2014 09:56

Ridicule - date entered for hearing is not next year. Hearing date show is 07/15/2014 ie. the date of the hearing we had on 15th July this year after which the Preliminary Determination to Grant was issued 10/3/2014 ie. 3rd October. Presumably since there is only one box available on the form this date will change if the objection(s) received requires a new hearing.Hope this helps

[superg1] 02/12/2014 09:37

Round

The information is all about understanding points that may appear in news prior to the news being released.

Even though things are spelt out in detail on various topics the same 'issues' are raised.

When the bureau tried to deny the permit media and other sources suggested the application had failed and had been rejected, that of corise was untrue. The city and other investors may assume that and probably did. The usual crew pushed out that view and it was lies.

I don't worry about what the market thinks or does. I know the market reacts to news and very often their understanding of is non existent.

The worst case scenario I see here going on current evidence, is a delay in the award of the permit due to a hearing. As it stands the latest date on which a hearing can be held is the end of February.

That may affect the share price due to short term gambling by traders, but it doesn't affect the overall business when the permit is awarded.

Even if a hearing date is entered it doesn't mean there will be a hearing, it's just what the flow chart dictates will happen in terms of administrative actions.

The bureau will review any objections and determine if any points are valid under the criteria list, having determined the objector has standing.

An objector could include many points but only 1 may be deemed valid. Then it's only that point that can be commented on on any hearing.

The first step post any valid objection is for the applicant and objector to communicate and potentially come to a satisfactory agreement.

It's good to have Sancler around as he/she understands how wording in law can result in differing views about it's meaning.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 02/12/2014 09:03

The problem would come if this bb legal debate becomes an actual real-life wrangle between parties that drags on for many months.

[roundup] 02/12/2014 08:50

Whilst this legal wrangle is indisputably to a lofty standard, unfortunately it isn't doing anything to restore confidence in the future outlook of IOF.

[superg1] 02/12/2014 08:08

I'm surprised that some read it. Law can be fascinating but it's generally boring.

I suspect Sancler and I agree entirely on the desire for better explanations on their wording.

EG

A person has standing if his or her property, water rights, or interests would be adversely affected by the proposed appropriation.


However for adverse effect it states you need to explain how it affects YOUR water right.

That makes the criteria to be a person of standing confusing. It seems property or interests have to be connected to a water right.

I assume 'interest' means an affected water right where a buyer of water for irrigation or otherwise, from the rights holder may not be able to if reduced water is available. That said, it states YOUR water right.

As it's the Missouri, then any such claim of adverse effect in relation to quantities of water available, seems to be a pointless objection.

Typically for law it leaves a grey area when trying to understand it.

[ridicule] 02/12/2014 08:03

engelo Thanks for your response,but how do we know July next year is a nonsense date? I agree it would be ludicrous to take that long . Is it because research has shown other applications have automatically had such lengthy dates entered and that such dates have proved notional?

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 02/12/2014 07:47

Yes, profitable to $42, I saw that. But the revenue-take for the local areas would devastate budgets and essentially wreck communities. A small point but one that bears consideration.

I'd like to say the debate over legals is interesting, but it isn't, and I guess that's the way it should be.

[monkeymagic3] 02/12/2014 06:48

Sancler and SG1 is like a middle class version of a breakdance battle (but without the kicking base line).

"It's like that and that's way it is........."

[rogerbridge] 01/12/2014 21:35

We now have top notch advocates. Excellent discussion SG & Sanclear.

[monkeymagic3] 01/12/2014 21:33

Spike - amen to that

[writz] 01/12/2014 21:26

Bakken shale oil estimated to be profitable down to $42/b. A propos of earlier discussion.

[engelo] 01/12/2014 21:18

Spike: when I first heard of IOF it was an iodine company, which was exotic enough.

We're used to SG knowing huge detail on every facet of IOF, but congratulations to Sancler on being pretty level on points over the first 5 rounds of this debate.

Looking forward to the next RNS and we can return to being an iodine co again (hopefully with some money in our back pocket).

As SG and others have said the water needs to be nailed down in order to plan for the next iodine year ;-)

[sancler] 01/12/2014 19:51

Yes, I think we're both coming from the same direction and both getting to the same place even if by slightly different routes.

Let's say an objector tries to challenge the beneficial use decision and only states the facts on which Atlantis relied and which the Hearing Examiner accepted and which resulted in the PDTG. Although the objector has stated facts those facts do not, as the objection form says is required, "explain how or why one or more of the application criteria cannot be met" or "show why the use (purpose) or flow rate and volume may not be considered beneficial".

If the objector's contention is that, based on and only those facts, the decision was legally wrong then it may be that an objection would be regarded as valid. But I think an objection on those lines would have to include, in addition, the new "fact" (although, strictly it is a legal argument rather than a fact) identifying what legal rule the Hearing Examiner had broken. By that I do not mean which criterion was involved, but what it was that rendered a decision in relation to the relevant criterion, based on those facts, illegal. What binding legal precedent was overlooked? Or that the decision was perverse. I don't know how Montana refers to it but, in the UK, it would be something like "no reasonable Hearing Examiner, properly applying the law, could reach that decision given those facts". Again, I don't know the situation in Montana but, in the UK, that's a very high hurdle to mount.

To that extent, I suppose, there may be a valid objection without any new facts. Indeed, my original idea of just juxtaposing two (arguably inconsistent) findings of fact from the PDTG itself was like that. But I decided that, once the legal tests that the different findings of fact were applying were looked at in detail, the inconsistency was apparent not real.

Shorn of technicalities the bottom line, in my view, is that an objection will not be valid unless it shows that the objector has an arguable case. Yes, it's another tick box exercise, but I think the DNRC has a discretion and will exercise that discretion in deciding validity with regard to the substance of the objection rather than just with regard to whether any fact it alleges is new or old or technically a fact or a legal argument. If you want authority for that,it comes from the case of Pitsch, Permit number 9357-s40A (P), hearing on 05/11/77: "Determination of whether objections are valid is a determination expressly within the discretion of the Department. [FO]"

Changing tack slightly.

The one thing we (or at least I) don't know is the precise basis, in terms of findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the decisions on the criteria that were simply adopted in the PDTG.

>>
In the Preliminary Determination to Deny the Department found that the Applicant had satisfied the criteria of physical availability, legal availability, adverse effect and possessory interest. Therefore these criteria were not at issue at the July 15, 2014 show cause hearing, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Nos. 11 - 34 on those criteria from the Preliminary Determination are hereby adopted and incorporated into this decision by reference.
<<

I agree that it seems most unlikely that any of those would be challengeable but, as I don't know what "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Nos. 11 - 34" say, I've only got that unlikelihood to go on.

[superg1] 01/12/2014 17:49

My point is you say it would have to be new evidence to amount to valid objection when the bureau seem to be saying that is not the case.


I hope it has to be new evidence, but don't believe it does.

In that case how can an objector prove that beneficial use is not proven, as it stands they can't. Unless of course they have uncovered a cunning plot where IOF forged the letters of intent to get the permit, to spend money on a depot, with no buyers for their water.

On the diversion evidence as you point out it would have to be a material mistake in the engineering, but even then it would be changed to ensure the required standards are met.


I think we are both coming from the same direction, both trying to work out, based on the law, how the permit could be refused. It was looking at those points that caused me to continue to post about being sure IOF would get the PDTG at the hearing. A big statement considering they were up against the water bureau.

The simple point at the time that I made was that they hit the criteria and the law supports IOF.

Those points remain the same for any objection.

[sancler] 01/12/2014 17:05

superg1

I think we'll have to agree to differ, but I imagine the difference is terminology.

You are referring, I think, to facts as facts: things existing in the real world.

I am referring to facts just as those facts of which the decision took account. If there is something of which the decision should have taken account and it didn't (whether that's because there were not yet any objections or otherwise) then that fact is a new one in the terminology I was using. If, just for purposes of example, the decision was based on a 10 inch pipe and an objector said "but they're actually going to use an 11 inch pipe" that would be a new fact in my terminology but, because (even if true) it would not change the decision re adequacy, I do not think it would count. If the objector said "all pipes of that sort leak" that would be a new fact in my terminology and, because it it might change the decision re adequacy, it probably would count.

What the objection process does is bring into possible focus facts (in your terminology) which were not obviously relevant to the original decision. But if a fact was in focus, and dealt with, in the original decision I don't think that simply restating it will allow the decision based on it to be re-opened.

On standing, the phraseology is "property, water rights or interests". So its not only water rights. But I've not tied down how far the other two words - "property" and "interests" - might be held to extend. The DNRC's Hearing Orders Index gives examples of what won't qualify but it provides no examples that I can see of, e.g., pure nimbyism being a qualifying "interest"

Edit: I posted that without seeing your later posts. If they change anything I'll post again.

[neddo] 01/12/2014 17:05

not another wait, phew?

[freshvoice] 01/12/2014 16:46

When do the company get to know who the objector(s) is/are?