Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[rogerbridge] 21/5/2015 16:34

That's Mr Ames dealt with, we can not be far away now.

[phoenixs] 21/5/2015 15:51

thanks for the clarification superg. Much appreciated.

[superg1] 21/5/2015 15:11

Phoenixs

No.

When they ask for a change of use a new number is generated, so if you look up the number it won't show a permit.

He was asking for a change for 100 AF of a 1000 AF permit that has already been awarded. He has been selling water under that permit at his Bainville depot.

That hearing was a show cause hearing, the bureau rejected his request to sell 100 AF of his existing allocation into North Dakota, the HE backed them.

In IOF's case the bureau weren't happy re beneficial use but the HE backed IOF and awarded it, saying the application is just like others that have been awarded.

Along comes Carlisle with his objection, a point was deemed valid, the bureau don't assess the facts in any valid point, it just goes to a hearing and gets sorted out there. The fact Carlisle has simply made some parts up and put in false information is irrelevant for the valid point ruling. It's not for the bureau to investigate but for the complainant to back it up, and that is where it would have all gone wrong for him. It obviously did ask he was requesting the hearing be suspended so he could have more time.

[freshvoicem] 21/5/2015 14:21

Very low volumes again today, everyone gone on holiday?

[phoenixs] 21/5/2015 13:01

superg, isn't it the case that Ame's application never had a preliminary determination to grant completed whereas Iofina's has had one granted and it was as a result of this that Carlisle objected.

[superg1] 21/5/2015 12:30

I forget who asked the other day, but that is why it takes so long.

The Ames change of use, fell at the first hurdle, the LOI. That is his evidence of beneficial use for ND. As stated by the HE it wouldn't even be accepted for use in Montana. So the application was doomed to fail just on that one point, but they go through every last detail in 40 pages worth of a final order.

It wouldn't have mattered if he had proved ND was on fire due to lack of moisture, the LOI wouldn't have been accepted.

He doesn't lose his 100 AF from the 1000 AF on his permit.

What he has done is show the Bureau that he hasn't sold a drop of water to 2 LOIs he used the get the permit and sold a very small amount to the 5 others. With 90% plus of his water going to 50 different customers who never appeared on an LOI.

As stated pre this ruling his permit applications look fraudulent, and now it seems the bureau are now seeing that they are exactly that.

On a letter, when challenged he dropped the Agri and Wild cat LOI.

I now believe his permits are under threat when they come to their annual renewal points.

[superg1] 21/5/2015 12:17

How is there a conflict TFC, we have nothing to do with Ames. He was trying to get 100 AF of his 1000 AF sold into ND.

Our Objector is Carlisle who has he Culbertson water depot. The one mentioned (Ames) is Bainsville. Carlisle has nothing to do with Ames.

In fact Bloomquist learned a lot in that hearing which he could add into the IOF case and firm it up.

If you recall Carlisle said IOF's 50 mile radius service area is exaggerated (Carlisles) own service area is bigger.

In that hearing they have more or less declared that an acceptable service area includes the entire state of Montana.

That contradicts the bureaus own rough guide of a 100 mile radius as the limit, under 'reasonable and believable'.

They have now said the cost of shipping water many 100's of miles does not mean it can't be done and therefore must be considered as feasible.

It's just the first real test of out-of-state use and in doing that they have enlarged any potential service area.

Ames was just lying of course, he was just making up an LOI to sell water to whoever he could over in ND. He did exactly the same with his Montana permits, and is now being found out.

[che7win] 21/5/2015 12:15

O/T Superg re.TUNG, feel sorry for shareholders, stunning falls but I wonder why it was ever so high.

[cyberbub] 21/5/2015 12:08

OBT, confirmation that the massive seller is now out...DYOR NAI etc

[the fat controller] 21/5/2015 12:02

Not sure Mr Blomquist should be acting for Ames, when he is also acting for Iofina against Ames. Definite conflict of interest. Iofina should have stopped this.
It also demonstrates that Blomquist's judgment should be questioned. Why did he take on Ames as a client when he must have been aware of conflict? Why did he take on such a poor case, as suggested by superg? And is he as good as we think he is, because he has lost this latest case for Ames?
TFC

[severnof9] 21/5/2015 12:00

Super

I hadn't appreciated that we got a mention. I will read it more closely!

Thnaks

[superg1] 21/5/2015 11:49

Severn

I've read it back to front 3 times over lol. Lots of interesting comment in it.

They include the feasibility clarification and water short areas in Montana.

The Bureau, backed up by the HE, determined it is feasible to transport water any distance in Montana from any given permit. So the unwritten rule/guidance of a service area of 100 miles radius being the limit just went out of the window.

That's where the daft ruling comes in too. ND has one permit that could supply the whole Bakken. BUT it lies with the boundary of the army corps area, so no water can be extracted. It's been that way for the last 3 years and continues on.

But the Montana bureau more or less say that it not a concern about what is actually available but what is available on paper.

So the same must apply for Montana permits that have more than their allocation contracted out. IE there is no water from Carlisle available as it's all linked to contracts.

In fact The case questions how Ames was to meet his contracts under the circs.

Then they also don't allow contracts well in excess of the permit amount to protect the risk of over-extraction.

So going on their own findings. Water is needed in Montana especially in areas where water is short and there isn't any available to help. But then of course there is a permit pending (IOFs) which could help, and gets a mention.

[superg1] 21/5/2015 11:38

Che

Not very good are you, Tung has just fallen through your 80p target. :-)

[severnof9] 21/5/2015 11:36

What I also found interesting was his reference to a 3 page article regarding slickwater fracking

[severnof9] 21/5/2015 11:00

I see that on the 13 May Mr Ames application to change the use of 100AF of water was denied despite his using Counsel, the same counsel, Mr Blomquist, that Iofina used at its hearing on the 19 February.

Perhaps Ames used the same counsel as Iofina because he realised he is good.

The hearing of that application took place on the 4 March. i.e. after our hearing on the 19 February. We must be close to receiving our determination now!!!


BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IN THE MATTER OF CHANGE APPLICATION NO. 40S-30065911 BY JOHN M. AMES AND MILES G. PANASUK )))

FINAL ORDER


APPEARANCES
John (Mike) Ames and Miles G. Panasuk appeared at the hearing through counsel John Bloomquist. Mike Ames, Ames Water Depot, and Lee Yelin, Water Rights Inc. testified on behalf of the Applicants. Denise Biggar, Glasgow Regional Office Regional Manager, was called and answered questions presented by Mr. Bloomquist.

FINAL ORDER
The Applicants did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that all of the required criteria for a change authorization to market water out-of-state are satisfied. (§ 85-2-310(9), MCA and § 85-2-402(6), MCA)
Application to Change Water Right No. 40S 30065911 is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of May 2015.
/Original signed by David A Vogler/
David A Vogler, Hearing Examiner
Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation
Water Resources Division
P.O. Box 201601
Helena, Montana 59620-1601
[phone]

[escapetohome] 21/5/2015 08:16

Keeping a beady eye on GAH - Gable Holdings - involved in the insurance sector.

Has fallen heavily of late and could be due for a rebound. Results announced next month.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 21/5/2015 00:53

'Let's hope that we hear next week about expanding the rate of expansion.'

Oh boy, you will...



hic!

[superg1] 20/5/2015 19:12

Did you spot the lie. They can't help themselves.

'Prices at the end of the day we’re not the ones that set the price, the price is set according to balance of supply and demand,'

They didn't say that when they let the price fly and had 5000mt in the inventory.

Yet they admit they have a strategy to take the price down to get back their market share.

[superg1] 20/5/2015 19:04

Mad

The usual evasive answers about anything to do with iodine.

What happened re SPN 'oh easy' X Y and Z.

Same re potassium and so on.

Iodine pricing and strategy um, er, ahem, well?

They admit the price drop is their strategy but seem fearful about explaining why, it's obvious, but still the analysts don't have a clue.

As you have spotted I suspect they will buy the RB mine and mothball it.

[madchick] 20/5/2015 18:13

I liked the cheeky question at the end!

Ravi Jain - HSBC
A quick follow-up on the lithium and iodine as well. So have you -- just I would love to hear your thoughts of -- have you looked at the RB Energy asset that was for sale in Canada as well as the iodine operations and if you had any comments on the asset?

Patricio Contesse - CEO
As I indicated we have looked at everything in detail but given our confidentiality agreements we cannot comment details on that.

From Seeking Alpha


{oh, and the dodging round the question of future iodine price}

[superg1] 20/5/2015 15:24

Algorta Norte just to show the figures to newbies.

This was about the only time they spoke up about costs. They have been very quiet since.

They are talking about H1 2013 with the date of the comment as Sept 2013

'In this period the company had revenues of US $ 56.2 million and an operating cost of US $ 38.8 million.'

SQM reported average sales of about $53 per kg back then. Like-for-like that meant Algorta did about 1060 mt in H1 2013.

1060mt at an operating cost of $38.8 mill = $36.60 per kg.

The exchange rate will have helped since then, but we know SQM have cut down on high cost mines and they haven't seen an overall drop in costs.

So it's likely, as already stated by SQM, that some Chile mines are loss making currently.

[king_roster_iii] 20/5/2015 14:07

Let's hope that we hear next week about expanding the rate of expansion.

[meb123] 20/5/2015 11:49

$22 per Kg strikes me as pretty good for SQM. Granted the exchange rate is a factor but doesn't it erode into IOF's claim to be the lowest cost producer ?