Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 15/12/2014 10:22

On those objections, it's always a worry as to what they might contain but we have been lucky enough to view the content in full.

Having done that, it's just plain old sods law that it's delayed things, but that's all it is a delay in the full award of the permit.

The one from the town of Culbertson is full of irrelevant junk, I can't find anything in that where it could be deemed valid under the objection criteria list.

The wildlife one has no relevant content either, they objected against the Culbertson depot using the same topic, it was deemed not valid.

Mr Carlisle of the Culbertson depot, I assume aged 71 from his comments, is simply throwing in fiction to try and protect his own business. It won't work it will fail miserably. his facts can be torn apart with great ease as posted before. They aren't even facts.

His claim re legal availability opens with an admission that it is legally available. The bureau determine how much water is legally available that's why that issue never came up in the first hearing.

Adverse effect is to do with Mr Carlisle being able to withdraw his allocation. He is upstream and that's why his permit isn't listed on the determination to grant.

Adverse effect isn't about affecting his margins or income. He talks of big margins. Going back to another application, there was an LOI saying that water available was too expensive so that would welcome the Ames depot. It was granted. I believe Culbertson was one of the first depots, so in theory he was the expensive guy.

Diversion has already been binned in the first hearing, that won't change. He worked it was possible to extract the amount, but on further reading all he has to consider is that it is not impossible.


All we have that looks like a potentially valid point is the reference to beneficial use. That is another matter already tested by the bureau, but Carlisle comes at it from a different angle.

The content of his objection is basically this.

There are plenty of depots to supply the amount needed, we don't need another one. If you allow it then my business will be devalued.

There is no case for protecting his business, so it boils down to the first line.

His 'facts' are not facts, they can easily be shown to be untrue as already demonstrated.

I note nobody objected to his diversion and ability to supply, but iof you take one truck (120 Barrels) pulling in, hooking up, fill up, unhook and exit to be 15 minutes. That means his depot flat out could do 8 trucks per hour from his 2 pumps.

That is 23,000 barrels per day supply capability, yet his permit is for 39,000 barrels per day.

He supplied letters of intent (contracts) for 48,000 bpd, about twice of what he can feasibly supply, and 9000 barrels more than he is allowed to supply.

If the guys he is signed with honour their contracts there is nothing left for anyone else to buy. That theme continues across the depots. The water contracts outweigh the water available in rights.

So how can he claim there is plenty of water and it is not needed. Halliburton can't contract with anyone as it's all taken up. Halliburton do not appear in LOIs in any other of the depots he mentions.

Thinking of it another way. If he is right and the depots have plenty of water, then there is no need to issue any other type of permit for irrigation or otherwise. So any farmer wanting an irrigation permit taking his view should be forced to purchase water from a depot as their demand is not needed as plenty of water is available.

The reverse is actually happening in ND where the farmers are selling to the oil industry.

Every individual in the US is entitled to a water permit. If water is legally available where they want it, and they have a qualifying and proven use for it.

Halliburton have said we need the water, they will have a mass of evidence as to why they need it, details that will prove Mr Carlisle is making it up.

He is making it up as he quotes higher numbers to get his permit, then lower numbers to object to someone else to show they don't need it.

The guy will be made to look a complete fool if it ever gets that far. He has no case, it's just a pain in the backside disruption nothing more.

[superg1] 15/12/2014 07:57

Monty no idea. Until those those that objected reply or not to the deficiency letters they received we don't know.

The cut off date is 15 days from when a letter is sent plus about a week to allow for late post that has a postmark within the 15 days. The bureau quote 7 days internally as the safety factor.

So 22 days form letters received. So nothing will be known before xmas in theory unless they all reply in quick time.

2 as you know I dismiss completely as they are not facts or relevant to the water laws.

The 3rd one is full of misrepresentation and are just random numbers, in some cases twisted numbers. The bureau don't check facts they simply let the applicant prove/contest points raised. If they did check facts then Ames wouldn't have his depots imo.

What some forget is that the water permit law is about ensuring every US citizen has access to water if they meet the criteria.

IOF will prove they need it, as they have already done. If the demand wasn't there they wouldn't waste money spending millions on a depot that big.

Back to the Bob Shaver comment on the local news

If the applicant meets the criteria by law they HAVE to award it.

That's it, it is as simple as that. They will get the permit.

An interesting media story popped up over the weekend and it sums up the situation in eastern Montana. If the infrastructure was in place they would see growth. Those existing depots are corner shops which are of no use to the likes of Halliburton.

[rogerbridge] 15/12/2014 07:47

MM, you may be able to afford a gold toaster in a couple of weeks.

[stevo2011] 15/12/2014 07:46

Take a bow

[19bells] 14/12/2014 23:02

No idea19B

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 14/12/2014 18:42

Why do posters feel the need to add their avatar initials to compositions? It's really quite tiresome and totally unnecessary, kindly desist.

ACT

[monty panesar] 14/12/2014 17:51

Superg,

Am I right in saying that there is a reasonable chance the permit could get issued in 2/3 weeks time?

Thanks

MP

[superg1] 14/12/2014 17:21

Monty

I know long term is boring to some, but objection tennis won't change the time line for a depot it just changes the time line for news that some crave.

The content of the objections is very poor. The wildlife one is no facts just speculation with no basis. The culbertson one is just a useless whinge. At least the water depot guy actually lists relevant points.

The bureau do not review facts, if they did Ames and Co would probably have no depots.

At worst I expect the Culbertson guy to be made to look like a fool at the hearing.

Iof will have a chance to discuss points with objectors if anything is deemed valid.

[superg1] 14/12/2014 17:12

Sancler

He has nicked those lines from other permits and water law speak.

I'm not guessing currently he is only the only person on his objection. Only persons listed on the form can be involved. Also only the points raised can be used. Then only criteria sections that are deemed valid.

Beneficial use speculation seems to be his angle. That's the same route the bureau tried.

[rogerbridge] 14/12/2014 15:40

Thanks SG,

[sancler] 14/12/2014 13:38

superg1: re post 27850

>>
How does it go sancler?

'He who represents himself has a fool for a client'
<<

Yes.

But I think he may have had help with this. "... is predicated upon ..." has a whiff of lawyer-speak about it.

I find that encouraging. If this is the best he can do even with assistance, it's not very good, is it?

I'm far from sure it gets him over the "standing" hurdle, let alone the full "validity" one. And, on the line he's taking, I doubt whether any deficiency response could change that.

[bogg1e] 14/12/2014 13:12

SG cheers. very much appreciated.

[monty panesar] 14/12/2014 10:17

Doesn't look like the NIMBY's are going to affect IOF either signing an agreement in the coming weeks or delay the timeframe for the start of water sales in late summer/autumn next year.

[kcowe] 14/12/2014 00:59

Superb investment you keep on ramping here superg1 you should pen a script on how
to loose all ones hard earned the easy way lol

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 13/12/2014 23:30

Well it's all a sham really, or you'd do it off-line.

I look at things, hear things, and read stuff.

Everyone hates me but as you'd guess I don't care.

[henry9th1] 13/12/2014 22:50

Nothing wrong with a contrarian view Arlington, some would call it hedging. I have noticed you have said if volume goes up then so will the share price and if it goes down so will the sp, a good strategy when posting on these forums. You will never be wrong taking that stance. Keep it up! Kind regards William

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 13/12/2014 22:06

You think he's right?

I think he isn't.

[roundup] 13/12/2014 21:58

Well done superb, very impressive. I hope the DNRC has as good an understanding of the situation as you have. Good work

[che7win] 13/12/2014 21:36

Mind boggling research superg,
I think you have the measure of his objection, it's a delaying tactic at best on his part...

[superg1] 13/12/2014 21:13

B. In addition the public's demand for an end to the use of excessive water reservation for the oil industry may well bring about the downfall of all water marketing, rendering present water rights useless. Each year laws are being enacted in many states in an attempt to regulate and stifle the use ofwater for this specific practice.

Are they? what is he reading?. North Dakota have emergency measures in place breaking water laws to keep the industry supplied.

Montana have just brought in fast track process. ND particular is having problems with illegal extraction and permit holders going well beyond their allocation. Big fines have been dished out.

You can see how this guy is just making it up. To someone in admin in the bureau they may look like valid points. But then those guys couldn't see that the buyer from John Ames was John Ames whose relevant business supplying the LOI doesn't supply water to the oil industry. Better still one employee filled out the application for one lady and slipped his email address in for contact with her. They didn't realise either that the various names were just a disguise to get multiple permits in which isn't allowed.

[superg1] 13/12/2014 21:07

One point he raises (paragraph at the bottom)

I'm not sure he understands what he is reading. He has completely gone down the wrong track.

Physical + the amount of water available.

legal demands = existing permits

Then he says

'In other words there should be compatibility with the availability of the water supply with the existing legal demands on the supply of water and is not limited to the physical presence of water at the point of diversion'


Yep fella right so far

Then he says

'In this case I would advocate that the available supply of water from multiple water suppliers in excess of 12,000 acre feet a year in the indicated service area is sufficient evidence that additional water reservations are not warranted.'

??? what the ...... has that got to do with the law point he raises. Legal demands are the existing awarded permits. They subtract the total of those to see how much water they have left legally available for any other applicants.
What he is talking about is water speculation which is a bridge already crossed in the first hearing.


C. Clearly $5-2-311, MCA, Beneficial Water Use Permit Criteria, sub para C states that analysis of the evidence on physical water availability and the existing legal demands, including but not limited to a comparison of the physical water supply at the proposed point of diversion With the existing legal demands on the supply of water.." In other words there should be compatibility with the availability of the water supply with the existing legal demands on the supply of water and is not limited to the physical presence of water at the point of diversion. In this case I would advocate that the available supply of water from multiple water suppliers in excess of 12,000 acre feet a year in the indicated service area is sufficient evidence that additional water reservations are not warranted.

[superg1] 13/12/2014 20:49

Redid my figures in one so check.

Just thinking on the 12000 wells at 600 gallons per day.

2.6 billion gallons per year. Bob Shaver thought there would be 3 billion gallons used but it turned out to be over 5 billion which shows it was the maintenance water he failed to account for.

As the bakken ages reworking will come into play as old wells are re-fracked to stimulate higher flows.

That figure will climb rapidly in the coming years due to the slick water boom.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 13/12/2014 20:43

Don't care what you posted MELLY, but 16 is big ;)