Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[sancler] 08/12/2014 12:50

bocker01

Yes, I imagine Montana would have a concept similar to lifting the corporate veil. Montana and the UK rest on the same legal tradition. But the terminology may well be different and, more importantly, the circumstances in which judges are prepared to do that may well be different. Even within the UK the attitude is different in different subject areas. In the subject area in which I specialised they would very seldom do it: the form was all. But in other UK areas it is more common although even there, I think, being the exception rather than the rule.

So I can't offer any qualified legal opinion on possible relevance in this case.

My gut-feel is "not very". The underlying issue here is beneficial use. Although water marketing is obviously beneficial to the seller, meeting the beneficial use criterion requires more than that. What they are interested in is whether the end-user's use fits within the "beneficial" categorisation: e.g. irrigation, stock, industry. If not, the water marketing amounts (in their terminology) to speculation: which is not allowed.

So LOIs are needed to follow a trail from the person with the permit to divert the water to where it will end up. It it can be shown that it's not going to end up where the applicant and any providers of LOIs said it was then that would involve breach of the water laws. But that there may be some technical error in the links in the chain does not, of itself, mean that the end-use is going to be different from what was claimed.

My comment about the astonishing difference between the PDTD in Atlantis' case and PDTGs in other cases rested in part on the DNRC's willingness to nit-pick on technical issues with respect to the chain in Atlantis' case whilst ignoring the sort of "link in the chain" questions that superg1's research has now thrown up in other cases.

[superg1] 08/12/2014 12:48

Well there is that company called wildcat trucking.

All I can find is 12 trucks, but the amount of LOis they can commit to for Ames related applications is truly stunning.

In another application when questioned they state they have done 150 round mile trips delivering water and are happy to do 300 miles in that case.

Yes sir that's right. 6 weeks to supply water to one well under those figures.

That would be one hell of a long frack job.. That's 50,000 barrels of water.

I can't quite work out how those 12 trucks can commit to 11.8 million barrels on the permits I have checked so far.

Are there 7 days in a week or 45, if 45 then I have been using the wrong figures. They keep popping up on Ames connected water permits.

Them along with good old Agri industries. Weird too as the handwriting looks similar in many cases.

One guy that calls himself Mike Ames has the identical signature to John Ames.

It's a funny old place Montana.

[ammons] 08/12/2014 12:47

I am more concerned about the continual slide in the share price, frankly. Suggest that negative news is leaking out.

[joestalin] 08/12/2014 12:42

You are fortunate Festario, I need a 40% increase just to break even.

I am confident it will happen some time next year, or maybe sooner.

[freshvoice] 08/12/2014 12:10

I wonder if the objector is Ames, an associated company, or someone they 'know'?

[festario] 08/12/2014 12:08

Lets also not forget that we now need a near 30% rise just to get back to 40p !!

[woolybanana] 08/12/2014 11:30

Amazing findings, superG. Congratulations.
Is this not simply a case of the good old boys network having had the water licence business to themselves for a long time and now blocking IOF as being the new upstart? Surely IOF are aware of this? Quite how the Montana water board fits into all this I cannot speculate but some very nasty ideas are going through my head.
IOF must already know what they are up against, surely?

And, guys, lets not forget that IOF does iodine, not water which is only an opportunistic adjunct.

[superg1] 08/12/2014 11:10

Sancler

All well and good until you find one permit where the bureau claimed some LOIs were speculation and not allowed. IE selling to one entity that was then trying to sell to another.

In that particular permit the Agri industries LOI was withdrawn as was TNT well services. That seems to have solved the issue.

If you look at the 'allegations' re the denial by the bureau they seem to be pointing in the direction of speculation for IOF.

So yes I did consider what you raise, but found that point along the way. Speculation alleged and Agri LOI withdrawn.

On one permit so far Agri is the only LOI, which raises the question as to whether it should ever have been awarded.

I'm starting to wonder of the bureau started to note mistakes, and so now are being very thorough challenging everything.

Roger

IOF will be in control I'll just send it all to them to consider and perhaps chat to any objectors pre any potential hearing to discuss some points that may come up.

'Play with fire' etc. On the face of how it looks, I can't see any connected depots wanting the doors I mention, opened.

[bocker01] 08/12/2014 11:03

Sancier, as I am sure you are aware there is a phrase in UK law called lifting the corporate veil. In which case as I understand the two different legal entities are considered in certain circumstances as one. Presumably Montana has something similar? What are you thoughts on the relevance of this?

[rogerbridge] 08/12/2014 10:19

I agree, best let IOF deal with this SG, I wold not want this to blow up without IOF being in control of the situation over there.
Top marks for your investigative efforts.

[sancler] 08/12/2014 10:16

superg1

I imagine (although I do not know for certain as it rests on Montana law rather than UK law) that what matters is the LEGAL personalities of the different parties, rather than just whether the same individual HUMAN BEINGS are involved on both sides.

So that Joe Bloggs has an interest, even a controlling interest, in both the buyer and the seller on an LOI does not necessarily mean that the buyer and the seller are the same person. If Joe Bloggs is, in UK terms, a "sole trader" on both sides of the equation then it would be a deal with himself. But if the deal is between the ABC Company on the one hand and the XYZ Company on the other (both of which Joe Bloggs controls) then, whilst in practice it obviously increases the possibility that some fiddle is involved, from a legal perspective the deal is between two different legal entities.

In UK terms, the issue of deals between two different legal personalities that in practice have the same controlling mind would be dealt with, for example, by the concept of an "arm's length" transaction. My take was that the phrase "strictly business" on some of the LOIs I have seen was how Montana law was reflecting a similar concept.

Perhaps your recent researches have already taken that point on board. If so, sorry for trying to teach granny to suck eggs.

[awolagain] 08/12/2014 09:49

I can see the out come here....the writing is on the wall. Great stuff Woody....keep it coming and I am sure the BOD will love it too.

I think the low 30p will be seen in less than a month as a wasted opportunity to buy at these prices.

GLA

[hew] 08/12/2014 09:34

Superg, care needed. UXB?

[superg1] 08/12/2014 09:34

Mad is is shocking which is a bit of an understatement

My thoughts were why were there no objections to other water depot permits, or if there were what was the outcome.

There are no objections from water depots as it seems many of them are the same folk using different staff or connections to apply.

Some letters of intent are the permit owner also acting as the buyer but under the guise of Agri inc and some letters signed with names apparently not authorised to do so.

They even have the cheek to write in one LOI supporting a new permit and depot because the other depots are so expansive, yet those depots are the same owner.

I will complete the digging and create a report. I'm not just thinking about any hearing but any future applications IOF may wish to do.

Under water laws you can not apply under a rule of speculation of sales.

Some depots 'owners' seem to be 'selling' water to themselves as contracted customers.

In other words imo it looks like they have fabricated LOIs to gain permits and then are speculating that someone may buy the water for the oil industry.

As in IOF's permit it's states all buyers must have contracts.


Sancler raised the point'He found it "astonishing" that the bureau had refused IOF having approved many other similar applications.

Astonishing just doesn't do it justice when you look a little deeper.

I'm sure IOF will love such evidence for near term or future use.

[madchick] 08/12/2014 08:49

superg - great work, but it's completely shocking!

Just as well IOF are making their own luck, they certainly didn't get any given to them (well, apart from the Chile situation..., although IOF haven't seen the benefits of that yet).

[superg1] 08/12/2014 08:49

One more comment (he says) then I'll wait until I've got all the details together.

In one letter of intent the seller (iverson) has signed it stating they have no financial or other interest in the company listed as the buyer.

The buyer is a Michael D Nash. I've not looked him yet.

The relevant point is the declaration which makes me suspect it was required.

Yet in this web of apparent deceit there are a number of LOIs where the seller does have a financial interest in the.

I've now established John Ames is the President of Agri industries, yet this is the 'buyer' sending in letters of intent for many of the Ames water permit applications to meet the beneficial use criteria.

So that in theory would be like IOF doing the LOI's for Atlantis which I'm pretty sure would have been refused.

[superg1] 08/12/2014 07:51

Oh I'm having a ball here.

I was just checking a permit for Constance Iverson and found (you guessed it) a letter of intent from good old Agri industries?

But it's signed by another Iverson. The bureau queried this and Agri industries sent a letter stating who could sign on their behalf, which including Iverson and lists 4 others including John Ames.

The same John Ames that has permits with LOIs from Agri industries. However the people they list that are authorised to sign I don't recognise as names I saw on other Agri industry LOIs, those letters were never questions.

Agri as far as I know are not in the business of supplying water to the oil industry, well at least their business description on their site doesn't mention it.

It's all looking like one big John Ames and co wheel of deception from where I'm sitting. I've not even scratched the surface yet.

Take it to a hearing and let's have it all out there, as I suspect a number of permits and depots will have their allocation slashed or maybe rescinded. :-)

[superg1] 08/12/2014 07:35

I forgot to mention.

Each year the depots have to submit reports re non use and justify continued allowance of the full amount under the use it or lose it rule.

So each year in theory if their original application is 'suspect' then they keep repeating false information to retain the full allocation.

[superg1] 08/12/2014 07:29

Oh I fully intend to read every last word of every water depot, and list any details that are suspicious which so far seems to be a large portion of the ones I've read.

The one main issue as being a genuine supplier at most of these depots is the number of filling points which just wouldn't be feasible to service someone like Halliburton. Hot water points seem thin on the ground too.

It seems to me that a particular person at the bureau has not been unbiased in their view. Going on the refusal of IOF's permit for beneficial use, based on water speculation, then that makes the other permit decisions look at best incompetent.

Even if we don't have to go to a hearing I'll still be sending it all off for future reference for IOF and others.

[hurricane.] 07/12/2014 23:28

Fisheries not valid ?
:)

[bobsworth] 07/12/2014 23:04

Yes good work SG. Thanks

[ansana] 07/12/2014 22:56

SG I forgot to say, fantastic detective work. Thank you.

[ansana] 07/12/2014 21:09

Might be better to contact IOF who in turn can pass it onto their lawyers who are in place. If they aren't aware of this it should encourage them to get a move on.

[rogerbridge] 07/12/2014 19:53

Let's hope that it does not come to that and the objection is dismissed

[pcjoe] 07/12/2014 19:49

Suggest you inform the Dragon lady ( Copied to senior Montanan state officials) of your findings SG once you have firmed up your investigations - Another "enquiry" might be in order to investigate the Depts previous behaviour - Sounds like incompetence at least and possible corruption at worst.....