Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[ridicule] 09/1/2015 08:16

Many thanks from me as well superg. I presume that you have passed all this useful water rights stuff on to the IOF BoD. Have you had any response from them?

[superg1] 09/1/2015 07:57

I worry that I bore you guys with it all, but at the end of the day facts are what matter not the BS on many threads.

The point of this thread was to share information found.

If it helps one investor, then I'll keep going.

As I said in posts many moons ago, if I post something is due to many hours of checking and re-checking points. In the case of water laws it can be highly complex but also simple.

The basic and over-riding rule in water laws is that the citizens are entitled to a water right if they identify a relevant need and beneficial use for it.

John Bloomquist taking on Mr Carlisle has only one outcome.

Carlisle may fancy being ripped apart in a hearing but maybe he won't and will withdraw it.

[woodpeckers] 09/1/2015 07:47

Thanks SG, you really do deserve to reap the rewards for the amount of time you put in to your research!

[monet] 09/1/2015 07:19

Great stuff Superg1,Big Thanks

[bogg1e] 08/1/2015 23:20

Hear hear.

[alphacharlie] 08/1/2015 23:11

Good stuff SG . . .

[loughton] 08/1/2015 23:04

Great stuff Superg1 - I really appreciate the time and effort you have put in

[superg1] 08/1/2015 22:59

So when I say. They will get the permit, it's because I had been through all the above but don't want to bore you guys with it.

So you can now see the form. It's an easy bet, there is only one winner.

Mr Carlisle has been in Montana 71 years and has about 8 water permits. He probably knows Mr Bloomquist and will realise he is a sitting duck, and will be annihilated in a hearing. His own permit will probably be under scrutiny as an exhibit to support IOF's case (and already has done so in the first hearing).


So when I say. He may well withdraw his objection, it's because of the research.

So Woody, I hope that lot explains my earlier post.

It may go to a hearing but there is a fair chance it won't. There is only one outcome either way.

[superg1] 08/1/2015 22:50

Oh by the way.

It's Mr Carlisle v this guy (John Bloomquist) who is now a lawyer and represents IOF.

'Atlantis Water Solutions, LLC appeared at the hearing by and through counsel John Bloomquist'


Mr. Bloomquist draws from his former experience as a Water Master with the Montana Water Court to continue close and productive relationships with administrative and regulatory bodies. He was a Shareholder at Doney Crowley Payne Bloomquist, P.C. from 1994 to 2013 and represents a variety of clients including ranchers, irrigation districts, small and large water projects, associations, and municipal and industrial water users. His practice involves transactional aspects of natural resource matters, as well as litigation before courts and various state and federal administrative agencies.

He has been involved with many important cases determining water rights in drainages and basins across the State of Montana. Mr. Bloomquist is a highly requested and respected presenter at continuing legal education courses on the subjects of Montana water rights and water quality law. His extensive knowledge has earned a top ranking in the field of Natural Resources & Environment by Chambers and Partners.

Raised in Colorado on a family ranch, Mr. Bloomquist has been involved in all aspects of the livestock industry, resulting in a genuine personal interest and devotion to agricultural-related matters.

[superg1] 08/1/2015 22:42

I've just spotted something and it's made me laugh.

Remember I went on about the Ames applications and LOIs looking highly suspect indeed and completely lacking in detail/suspected false etc etc.

Well in the hearing examiners determination he said IOF LOIs were not unlike 2 permits. One ending 842 and 631. One is the objector and he did provide excellent LOIs. The only other decent application I read was for Pease ranch and that is number 842.

If you recall I have slated the Ames permits especially the Iverson one where One of Ames employees filled it in on behalf of the applicant, then Agri owned by Ames are the only LOI..

Then on another where Ames was a joint owner the bureau questioned two LOIs, Agri and Wild cat (the other dodgy loi lot). The bureau questioned the LOIs they didn't reply and Ames withdrew his name from the permit.

Well I've spotted some exhibits from the first hearing which IOF presented.

DNRC Determinations to Grant Water Marketing Applications and Supporting Intent to Purchase Statements. Application Nos. 40S-30063842, 40S-30048631, 40S-30063074, and 40S-30051644.

074 and 644 are those 2 farcical permits. I reckon they have been read, noted, and were just too embarrassing to mention in the hearing considering Denise was there and signed them off.

I suggest the wotsit hit the fan over those permits post meeting. As with those awarded how can any hearing examiner now reject others permits.

IOF had obviously spotted them, and will use them again :-). I'm not sure they realise that the agri employee did all the work on it.

That explains a 'They (bureau) are aware' response I got.

[superg1] 08/1/2015 22:26

Back to the bureau's refusal to grant on the same topic.

The bureau

62. Applicant did not comply with the requirements of §85-2-310(9)(c)(iv) and (v), MCA,and the Department finds that this Application is speculative and does not show good faith or bona fide intent to appropriate water for a beneficial use.

The hearing examiner as in a previous post listed the LOIs were not unlike those on applications already approved.

48. Based on the information within the application, and information supplied at the hearing, the Department finds that the criteria for beneficial use have been met.

Mr Carlisle

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.

An exhibit in the IOF hearing last time backing up an LOI.

10. Affidavit of Tim Partin, Big Horn Leasing, LLC

[superg1] 08/1/2015 22:16

You can see in a previous post Mr Carlisle is mistaken about the Arrowhead LOI



Then he mentions this in his objection at length but this line is what he put and means.

'The Atlantis Water Solutions service area is exaggerated.'

Below are two paragraphs re service areas for intended use. One for the permit of Carlisle and one for IOF.


'water would be used in Montana counties of Dawson, McCone, Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan. An attached map of the service area depicts a 50 mile radius covering all or parts of the five counties named in the letter of intent'

'The service area is generally located in all of Daniels, Sheridan, Roosevelt, Richland, north 2/3rds of Valley county, north 1/2 of Phillips, McCone and Dawson county'

The 1st paragraph has 5 counties. The 2nd has those 5 plus 3 more.

Going back to his objection point.

'The Atlantis Water Solutions service area is exaggerated.'

Paragraph 1 is IOF (5 counties), Paragraph 2 is his permit (8 Counties).

He's good isn't he. :-)

[superg1] 08/1/2015 21:56

IOF's LOIs obviously contain a lot more than most permits.

54. The letters of intent from the oil field service companies (which account for more than 50% of the requested volume) indicate that the water purchased will be for purposes such as hydro- fracturing, fresh water treatment of oil and gas wells, and fresh water for drilling fluids used in oil, gas and water well drilling. The letters of intent provided are not unlike any other letters of intent provided for water marketing which have previously been approved by the
Department.

[superg1] 08/1/2015 21:54

To prove beneficial use this is all an LOI needs in it.

Going back to many of the Ames LOIs they said nothing more than things like

A The user and the amount.

B A general area

C 'strictly business'

D The LOI itself

(A) each person who will use the water and the amount of water each person will
use;
(B) the proposed place of use of all water by each person;
(C) the nature of the relationship between the applicant and each person using
the water; and
(D) each firm contractual agreement for the specified amount of water for each
person using the water; The purpose of the legislation was to address speculation in the appropriation of Montana’s resources, i.e., tying up water for speculative future use.

That's all you need countless permits have been awarded on such limited detail.

[serratia] 08/1/2015 21:34

Just for interest oil prices achieved by state.

hxxp://www.paalp.com/_filelib/FileCabinet/Crude%20Oil%20Price%20Bulletins/Daily/2015/2015-004_January_7_2015.pdf

[superg1] 08/1/2015 19:39

Alpha

Well put.

Culbertson have a 71 yr old who has never played footy v the Barcelona of the oil services industry and they have a full team with top internationals on the bench.

It's a farce and I must get around to showing why but have related 'stuff' to do. I'll grab a cuppa and get on with it.

Note cuppa, not an 8 pack of Carlsberg export.

Just a snippet from that elusive web access in hyperspace from just days ago.

'deemed 2 objections terminated'

That's 4 words of an initial 45.

[superg1] 08/1/2015 19:28

Jam
1000's of media comments but this is from the International energy agency.

It a panic market creating the problem and not a lot else if you look at the figures.

Consider how marginal the over-supply is and the damage this has done to 100's of small oil companies and it should balance out near term.

I believe Libya lost 300k per day in the attacks and Venezuela cut some too.

Hence I fancy checking out some oil stocks which are usually of little interest to me.


'But supply and demand are not significantly out of balance to justify the new normal of $50 a barrel of crude oil. Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) show the demand-supply imbalance of the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2014 at roughly 500,000 barrels a day is not out of line with previous quarters.

The imbalance was more in the second quarter of 2014 and even greater in the first and second quarters of 2012. “In fact, 500,000 barrels of overproduction (approximately 0.5 per cent of the total) is equal to OPEC overproduction versus its own quota. And, yet, we saw crude plunging in the last two quarters with no parallel when the world was similarly oversupplied in the past,” equity research firm Edelweiss said in a report.

“It is difficult to see how half a million or even a million barrels a day (around one per cent of the total production) justifies a 50 per cent drop in price.”

[alphacharlie] 08/1/2015 19:23

In case you didn’t know:

Soot - soot is black; snow, it’s white and water, well, it’s wet. No-one ever seems to challenge these obvious concepts/facts .

But there have been some truly mind-boggling posts by heartwell these past 24 hours, relating to Montana where there are three ‘teams’ objecting to IOF’s provisional permit.

It’s a bit like the FA Cup. Two of these teams have been knocked out in the preliminary rounds – Culbertson Town and Wildlife County and the other has found itself in the draw for the 4th round. They’re called Culbertson Utd and have just drawn Manchester Utd. heartwell is backing them to pull off a win and go on to take the cup outright plus he’s still hanging on to his betting slips for the other two, convinced that they too are still able to win the trophy.

[stevo2011] 08/1/2015 18:51

Yes just like QPP was to be 0p at the end of 2014

[nellyb] 08/1/2015 17:14

Heartwell, have you made any money out of iof's share price fall?

[neddo] 08/1/2015 16:49

heartwell, where will the share price be in 12 months?

[heartwell] 08/1/2015 16:34

$15m dollars spent on 6 washing machines with drums that hold 2.5kg.
That's the reason you have lost 90%+ of your investments.
We told you, we warned you.
But if I helped one person from investing in this, then I've done my job.

Oh and didn't Lance sell half his shares while these washing machines where been built by the person he chose as the CEO. Two built on hills ? Maybe super can confirm that :)

Food for thought

There is a lawyer working on class action for shareholders in QPP
Maybe one should be setup for IOF?