Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[testuser123] 06/1/2015 11:57

The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation ("DNRC") of the State of Montana has reviewed objections and determined, at this time, only a portion of one objection is valid

[heartwell] 06/1/2015 11:50

The news is out there. And your ramping is embarrassing. Taking the first objections. There are three.
Once the wildlife commissions gets involved its game over for the water permit.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 11:38

Heart

Thanks

You are the liar, as I know I'm right. I told you guys and will repeat it. Everything is viable via the web.

If you can't find it tough.

One point and one 71 yr old man with a very poor case, on one point, with no lawyer v iof lawyers and Hal.

He has to prove that Halliburton don't need the water. He can only use the points in his objection.

In relation to Hal he states they can't know about the other depots. Lol.

Check the news out soon, you'll see I'm spot on.

[heartwell] 06/1/2015 11:28

Spinning lies eh Graham, are you joining ukip too?
hic

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/1/2015 11:24

The only firm who failed to make a cent of profit out of that boom...

Eh Graham? ffs

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/1/2015 11:22

ukip Ikip, just as boring as the rest.

This is more fun, trying to make money out of the most profitable area of the USA!

[heartwell] 06/1/2015 11:13

SuperWrong there are 3 objections. Iofina will be in court hearings for the whole of 2015.
Looks like ukip will be on a black shoe string now the Banksy cheques have bounced.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 11:12

I didn't realise Mitsubishi have a small toe in Oklahoma too. Mitsubishi have businesses in the iodine sector.

On looking up the other OK producers I found that Woodward iodine are linked to MICAL specialty chemicals who take all their iodine.

That company is owned by Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi had the domain name www.iodine.com tied up but never used it. It's on the MICAL site as a link.

The domain name expired in recent times and this lot got it before I could, which is a new health company. You have probably seen the adverts

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/1/2015 11:08

Yes, but when Bak is being discounted @40 bucks you won't have that scope.

Eh Banksy? You can't even drill fer oil now lol

ffs, ukip willlll give you a buzz, pity is they're the same as the rest ;(

[superg1] 06/1/2015 11:03

Back in 2004 Iochem (US Oklahoma) were reported (USGS survey) as having 9 production wells for their needs to produce iodine.

They started production in 1987.

That gives you some idea of the importance of 82,000 acres of leases for 1000 to 2000 wells.

[meb123] 06/1/2015 10:59

SG , Many thanks for clarification . Seems like its only a matter of time for the Japs to start talking to IOF if they havent done so already .

[leggit] 06/1/2015 10:56

superg, well done, your post 28407 called it perfectly.

A pre-hearing conference is scheduled for weds 14th Jan at which parties will decide if 19 Feb hearing date is ok, and to decide the way forward. Quite possible that the objector will call it a day at this time.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 10:48

The relevant objection goes on a bit hence all the posts. However I'm pleasantly surprised to find only this is left as relevant.

I have added some brief comments in brackets which I'll expand on later

The first area of contention is whether or not there is a need for an additional water reservation of 3,662 acre feet within an area with a fifty mile radius of Culbertson. Generally it takes 40,000 barrels to frack a well once. (The Atlantis Water Solution's provisional request for water is a sufficient quantity to frack 702 wells in a year.) The amount requested exceeds the oil industry's ability in Montana to drill oil wells.

(40k comment misrepresenting or a lie and contradicts his own permit application, hence the other figures are then wrong)


A. In addition there are no less than 18 water marketing permits and three municipal water rights within the radius of this circle reserving in excess of 12,000 acre feet of water a year.

(Yes he has listed 18, some don't have any water, 1 listed twice, some don't supply to the oil industry etc etc, so it's a misrepresentation of the truth)

B. Clearly the oil service companies signing these letters of intent are not knowledgeable of the amount of water available in the area and are signing letters of intent solely speculating about the availability of water for their own needs and the fact there is no binding act of intent on their part.

(that's just a plain daft comment they are well aware, but the depots don't meet their demands anyway and have contracts just about using up all their allocation)

Conclusion:

For these reasons I respectfully ask that the provisional permit to Atlantis Water Solutions be denied for failure to show a beneficial use.


(No chance, the above are his 'facts', he will fail, if it ever gets to a hearing)

I have a large amount of info stored to send which shows what a complete farce this objection has been, including evidence of permits that should never have been awarded.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 10:30

From the actual objection forms

If an Administrative Hearing is held on the application you will be LIMITED TO THOSE CRITERIA on which you specifically file an objection and to those objections that are deemed valid.

ONLY an objector whose signature appears below will be allowed to participate in an administrative hearing.

I did point out some time back the details are available via the web if you know where to look.

71 yr old with one criteria point v IOF and Halliburton.

Not forgetting the 71yr old has some false details in the valid point but the bureau don't check that.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 10:20

Bin this too

A fourth misrepresentation is their plan to sell water to rural municipalities and other private and public entities. Not only has there been no indication of a need from any of these entities,

but most are presently receiving potable water from Dry Prairie Water or the Town of Culbertson. Both have municipal water rights on the Missouri River.

A fifth misrepresentation is the fact that no indication has been given for the number of well sites in the service area to be drilled.

The first part is irrelevant as that part has already been removed.

As for the last paragraph no one ever has provided that info.

In the case of many Ames permits it just says For water marketing with no other details at all. The Culbertson guy supplied plenty of detail for his LOIs but not the info he states.

It's irrelevant.

I'll detail the relevant points, and some false details within those later.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 10:13

The only way viable way for the Japanese to now exploit iodine production in the US is via IOF.

IOF have the tech, they have the leases and O and G contracts and they have the patent protecting the business model throughout the US.

If you check they have the patent to cover Japan too, but that is just a defensive move.

As for Japan, the resource is in an irreversible decline, as they have been extracting there for 50 years.

The recent posts are the value I can see that the market in general is completely clueless about.

The water permits, Atlantis Aquifer, discharge permit, US fisheries rights swap, Helium and Oil potential are all just bonuses as always stated.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/1/2015 09:41

Is this still an iodine producer?

Just wondered Graham...

[superg1] 06/1/2015 09:40

Bin this bit, legally available. I've included the Arrow head part as the fool thought they were using that letter for their permit. It's his letter for his application, IOF were just showing that similar permits have been awarded with LOIs similar to theirs.

The second misrepresentation is a reference of a letter of intent presented to the DNRC from Arrowhead Oil field services to the Culbertson Water Depot, LLC. (See hearing Exhibit No. 9) Clearly this letter of intent does not address Atlantis Water Solutions and should have no bearing in determining the Beneficial Use of the Water in their Provisional Permit application.

A third misrepresentation is the availability of the water supply to meet a demand. This provisional application addresses only the availability of the water in the river and not the supplies available from other sources. $5-2-311, MCA, Beneficial Water Use Pennit Criteria uses the term "not limited" to a comparison of the physical water supply at the proposed point of diversion to the proposed demand and clearly gives room for the consideration of water usage from other sources. In this case although the water is available from the Missouri River there

[superg1] 06/1/2015 09:36

Bin this too, It was long so I've included the last paragraph which sums up the flavour of his point.

His point is about their service area claimed (50 mile radius) is unacceptable and 'exaggerated'.

It's comical as he puts the same service area in his own water application, so he would be stupid to raise that point. Furthermore for one of the depots he mentioned the bureau accepted they would sell water to the buyers who would convey it up to 300 miles away. I will post that letter some time.

7. Therefore the area that Atlanüs Water Solutions has closest feasible access is a square area from Culbertson north to Froid fifteen miles, thence east fifteen miles, thence south to the Missouri River by Bainville, Montana and back fifteen miles to Culbertson, Montana. On the borders of this 225 square mile area (15 X 15 miles) there are no less than five competitors holding water reservations in excess of 3000 acre feet of water competing for the oil field industrial business. Three of these water depots also offer water heating. (Culbertson Water Depot, Constance Iverson, and Ames Solutions-Bainville.) The Atlantis Water Solutions service area is exaggerated.

[meb123] 06/1/2015 09:34

Morning SG

Read your revised header . Re Japenese producers in the US . Do you have any further info on them . Presumably they extract iodine from Brine . Do you regard them as a threat, ie can they ramp up production if they are able to improve their technology.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 09:28

Bin this too (adverse effect)

The second area of contention is that the issuance of th1S Atlantis Water Solutions provisional permit will adversely affect the sale of water from our facility by further weakening the demand for water.

A. With the advent of6-8 new water marketing applications, we have found that the demand for water is predicated upon the water's location to the drilling rigs more than any other factor. Clearly with the present water reservations, the demand for water is a very small percentage of the actual water reservations available. Clearly this permit is a speculation upon several factors: demand, availability, need, and a large profit margin involving the sale of water.

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 of water for this specific practice. Opponents usually use as examples the use of large water reservations or speculation in water reservations.