Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 20/2/2015 19:24

Can't see the wood for the trees is the danger here.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 20/2/2015 19:15

I think sometimes we can have a tad too much information.

[superg1] 20/2/2015 19:12

I'm just picking through some cases to cover the odd point raised.

Here is one

'Objector would have the burden of production to overcome the Department’s Preliminary Determination'

'I conclude that the Objector has failed to produce sufficient evidence to overcome the findings and conclusion regarding historic use made in the Preliminary Determination to Grant.'

Here's another showing a number of objectors

The Application received twelve valid objections

Objectors Jerry Williams, Steven and Carol Bergquist, Rod and Kathy Kline, Carol Bettsand Donald Gervais appeared at the hearing pro se. Objectors Patrick Hanley and Terri Kaye Kirkland appeared at the hearing pro se, but departed from the hearing prior to closing.
Objectors Quentin Nelson and Keith Elders made no appearance at the hearing.

Only Objectors Jerry Williams, and Rod and Kathy Kline provided direct testimony and evidence on their objections.

Poor fella had a lot to cover in that but the end result was permit awarded

[monty panesar] 20/2/2015 19:02

SG,

Not sure we will get a RNS as nothing has materially changed. It is just going through a process if what was posted earlier is correct.

Monty

Ps thanks for all you great posts. Amazing detail.

[monty panesar] 20/2/2015 18:47

So it is a two week delay in the process that has been going on for 2 years or so. I can't complain too much at that.

We are dealing with bureaucrats not businessmen hence my caution earlier in the week.

Although we can moan to the cows come home about long the process takes it does create a barrier to entry and this is what will make a partner pay a decent sum up front to do a deal.

[superg1] 20/2/2015 18:46

Woody

90 days is a common theme across the bureau timelines, they include 45, 90 and 120 day periods.

At this time I strongly favour that Carlisle needs time to digest all that was thrown at him. No way can he be expected to do a closing brief on the day.

I suspect if it is to be March 6th then IOF will rns early next week with an update.

[woodpeckers] 20/2/2015 18:37

The HE is presumably given 90 days in case the objective evidence is borderline and he needs to seek counsel in order to make a final decision.

Hopefully after hearing Carlisle's attempt to sum up his case, the HE will realise that this is a clearcut case of one man wishing to maintain a monopoly and with the golf course beckoning, he will want the job stamped and off his desk.

[superg1] 20/2/2015 17:58

I suggested this was dropped on him too.

It's by the Society of Petroleum Engineers. They had built up data of 1100 wells in the area at the time the report was produced.



It has a few a more facts in it than his objection and is the most comprehensive study that exists re the bakken.

He simply wouldn't be prepared for all this. The best he had was a cheese sandwich and a flask, along with his permit list I suspect.

[superg1] 20/2/2015 17:55

Mick

Carlisle gave his point in the objection re other permits and that would have been his case, a simple list.

Other than that he claims IOFs LOI's must be to some extent false.

IOF would have questioned him re his permit list, which he would have summed up from as it stood. The fact is his permit list will have been blown apart and what he recorded and deemed valid by the bureau will be shown to be full of errors as mentioned.

It's two way process challenging evidence naturally covers both parties.

The bureau have the permits and it seems they failed to note basic errors like double records and municipal permits along with others where there is no water being extracted or available at all.

I suspect that Carlisle has been given time out to sum up. IOF will have been ready and fired up and Carlisle wouldn't have seen any of that coming.

There is no way he could sum up yesterday, today or Monday.

Trying going in blind and check through the 18 permits he listed, picking out relevant points.

Not forgetting the large 1100 Bakken well survey that was probably dropped on him too, which kicks his volumes claims into touch. I'll try and dig it out.

It lists slick water fracking as being the best economical method which means 150k to 250k barrels per well. 4 to 6 times his objection claim.

[woodpeckers] 20/2/2015 17:43

Although we didn't know that the hearing examiner had 90 days to make his final decision I would be highly surprised if our legal expert and hence IOF didn't.

Bearing that in mind and based on the high probability that Carlisle's defence was less than convincing, I'm sure that the board will be, as they said in the Jan update, continuing to "move forward with execution plans for this water depot project."

So though we would all have liked to know that the box had been ticked I don't think that this news will really have had any material impact on the board's plans.

We'll get there in the end guys.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 20/2/2015 17:40

I'm not a lawyer mate, just a drinker (there's a but a coming...) but, surely any objection is in effect a case to defend (why you should have something)?

They always say it's not for you to defend, but it is, in reality.

[micknickbanny] 20/2/2015 17:25

I thought the onus was on Carlisle to show his evidence at the hearing why the permit should not have been preliminarily awarded, not for iofina to evidence why it was and then afford Carlisle time after the hearing to put a case together (if he can).It seems iofina are having to justify the award of the permit and not Carlisle to show reason for permit to be withdrawn

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 20/2/2015 16:58

The only strategy is to borrow money of Banksy, no wonder he's been quiet.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 20/2/2015 16:57

You assume they ever will be? My guess is they'll call it internal LOL

Because there hasn't been one ;)

[superg1] 20/2/2015 16:56

The last one I read they reconvened about a month after the initial hearing as the objector hadn't turned up, they heard his part of it about a month later and concluded within about 6 weeks after that.

There are no similar cases to look at as such a permit has never been refused, most of them are about farmers arguing over senior rights.

In Carlisle's case he would have been hit with a hell of a lot of info and at 71 he was probably mentally shattered. No wonder really that they have given him time to go through it (if that's the case), it took me blooming ages to go through it all.

I do get it as there was no way that he was going to be able to sum up after that lot was thrown at him, and legally it wouldn't be fair to expect him to.

That imo is the most likely reason for the 14 days time to sum up. IOF were more than prepared there was nothing in his case that would catch them out, but he wouldn't have known what was coming his way.

Perhaps Mr Carlisle's summing up time, is also thinking time about whether he wants to continue to pursue this.

I bet he had the whisky out last night.


Would any one like a one hour lunch break then sum up all the facts I found, if not let me know how long you need.

[micknickbanny] 20/2/2015 16:50

wonder when the details of the strategic review will now be released !!

[albany30] 20/2/2015 16:39

Escape - are you joking?! Have you genuinely posted here pretending to shout trading wisdom on Iof to all and sundry and you then tell us Tern is your big tip?!Absolutely hilarious. Let's check back on Iofina v Tern in two months.

[superg1] 20/2/2015 16:37

Aha Nice to see an actual days limit on it, I couldn't find one anywhere.

These things don't get sorted in days post hearing unless someone withdraws, it could takes many weeks was the advice.

It sounds like he has a game of golf booked for the afternoon if what Andy says is right, I'm not joking either, seen it before.

As for using the full 90 days, highly unlikely.

[engelo] 20/2/2015 16:37

Roger: ouch :-) If this is your point, Dec to June = 6 months.