Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[severnof9] 04/6/2015 18:45

RHwillcoll

It is the final order

go to page 12 last doc on this link

hxxp://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/docs/hearing-order/cases?b_start:int=1100
#

[severnof9] 04/6/2015 18:38

Share the love

[rhwillcoll] 04/6/2015 18:36

severnof9: that is the original determination to grant, the document subject to objections. See the date. We are looking for a new document, post-objection. So, it still hasn't come in, and the DNRC website has not changed. Sorry, a little premature, unfortunately.
PS Well done re the job!

[severnof9] 04/6/2015 18:33

PS

Went for an interview and got offered the job today so good news all round. there is a god!

[severnof9] 04/6/2015 18:23

The decision is in we've got it

hxxp://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/docs/hearing-order/cases/30066181-40s-atlantis-fo_pdg.pdf/view



PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION
Subject to the terms, analysis, and conditions in this Order, the Department preliminarily determines that Application for Beneficial Water Use Permit No. 40S 30066181 by Atlantis Water Solutions LLC should be GRANTED. The Department determines that Applicant may divert from the Missouri River, by means of pumps, from January 1 – December 31 at 5 CFS up to 3622 AF, from a point in Government lot 3 of Section 3, T27N, R56E, Roosevelt County, for Water Marketing use within the State of Montana from January 1 – December 31. The Place of Preliminary Determination to Grant following Preliminary Determination to Deny Page 12 of 14
Application for Beneficial Water Use Permit No. 40S 30066181 by Atlantis Water Solutions LLC
use (point of sale) is located in the NESE Section 28, T28N, R56E, Roosevelt County. The permit will be subject to the following conditions, limitations or restrictions:
1. THE APPROPRIATOR SHALL INSTALL A DEPARTMENT APPROVED IN-LINE FLOW METER AT A POINT IN THE DELIVERY LINE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WATER MUST NOT BE DIVERTED UNTIL THE REQUIRED MEASURING DEVICE IS IN PLACE AND OPERATING. ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE APPROPRIATOR SHALL KEEP A WRITTEN MONTHLY RECORD OF THE FLOW RATE AND VOLUME OF ALL WATER DIVERTED, INCLUDING THE PERIOD OF TIME. RECORDS SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY JANUARY 31ST OF EACH YERAR AND UPON REQUEST AT OTHER TIMES DURING THE YEAR. FAILURE TO SUBMIT REPORTS MAY BE CAUSE FOR REVOCATION OF A PERMIT OR CHANGE. THE RECORDS MUST BE SENT TO THE GLASGOW WATER RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE. THE APPROPRIATOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE MEASURING DEVICCE SO IT ALWAYS OPERATES PROPERLY AND MEASURES FLOW RATE AND VOLUME ACCURATELY.
2. THE APPROPRIATOR SHALL SUBMIT A PROGRESS REPORT OF THE WORK COMPLETED UNDER THIS RIGHT BY JANUARY 31ST OF EACH YEAR AND UPON REQUEST AT OTHER TIMES DURING THE YEAR UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. FAILURE TO SUBMIT REPORTS MAY BE CAUSE FOR REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. THE REPORTS MUST BE SENT TO THE GLASGOW WATER RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE.
3. ACCESS AT THE DEPOT SHALL BE CONTROLLED ENSURING ONLY THOSE USERS WITH CONTRACTS ARE ABLE TO ACQUIRE WATER.
4. WATER APPROPRIATED UNDER THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE TRANSPORTED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF MONTANA. CUSTOMERS SHALL BE INFORMED OF THIS CONDITION BY LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT AND BY SIGNS POSTED AT THE DEPOT.
NOTICE
This Department will provide public notice of this Application and the Department’s Preliminary Determination to Grant pursuant to §85-2-307, MCA. The Department will set a deadline for objections to this Application pursuant to §§85-2-307, and -308, MCA. If this Application receives a valid objection, it will proceed to a contested case proceeding pursuant to Title 2 Chapter 4 Part 6, MCA, and §85-2-309, MCA. If this Application receives no valid objection or all valid objections are unconditionally withdrawn, the Department will grant this Application as herein approved. If this Application receives a valid objection(s) and the valid objection(s) are conditionally withdrawn, the Department will consider the proposed condition(s) and grant the Application with such conditions as the Department decides necessary to satisfy the applicable criteria.
Preliminary Determination to Grant following Preliminary Determination to Deny Page 13 of 14
Application for Beneficial Water Use Permit No. 40S 30066181 by Atlantis Water Solutions LLC

[freshvoice] 04/6/2015 17:18

cyber
or next week or the next but one..........................................

[cyberbub] 04/6/2015 17:04

Water news tomorrow, Mon or Tues IMO.Good luck to all LTHs

[woodpeckers] 04/6/2015 16:31

Well I just tried to pick up a few on the cheap and all I could get was a £1K at 30.89p, so over the ask price then which was 30.75p.

[monkeymagic3] 04/6/2015 16:20

Hardly surprising.

[roundup] 04/6/2015 16:11

We have an impasse--nobody prepared to commit to sell or buy.

[bobbyshilling] 04/6/2015 14:02

Good! Well found SG.

[superg1] 04/6/2015 13:48

od

The reason they take so long has been explained.

AMES submitted a useless single LOI for an area where there is no drilling. The bureau rejected it and there was a hearing.

The single and only letter said 'We'll buy the water only if we need it'. That doesn't qualify as a letter of intent for beneficial use, simple stuff. In fact the letter was an amended one from an older application, Ames must be a bit of a plum. That one aspect meant they were never going to get it.

It took 71 days for the final order.

The law states they must list everything, hence they have a 41 page document for an application that fell at the first hurdle.

[superg1] 04/6/2015 13:41

Looking at the line again

'Within 20 days, parties adversely affected by the proposal can file written exceptions to the proposal for decision'

They don't quantify 'adversely affected', that may be the general meaning under adverse affect as in the permit application criteria.

Carlisle couldn't show that. Isn't law fun :-)

[odvod] 04/6/2015 13:40

1. it looks like not a clear cut decision as it is taking so long
2. the further the old man goes from his native state in the court system, the costlier and the less chance him winning

[superg1] 04/6/2015 13:37

Wooly

He didn't have a lawyer at the hearing, probably to save cash. I doubt he will want to pay one to go through it all to find there is nothing (if the permit is awarded).

Re the circs of IOF potentially knowing. I only spotted that wording this morning. I doubt they would inform the nomad until it's all official.

I note their inclusion of extras in the news re the water side and that news was within 20 days of the final order time-frame.

Perhaps they don't know, I'm just going on those paragraphs. One says the proposal for the result must be put to the parties (20 day response time). The other says the final order (noting exclusions) must be within 90 days.

In theory that means by day 70 IOF may have been informed of the decision, which then gives either party a chance to raise concerns, before the final order.

I note the company has replied to some saying news within 2 weeks. If there had been an exception delay (30 days) then perhaps they wouldn't have said that to those asking.

[festario] 04/6/2015 12:59

They really don't seem to want to form a market on IOF today, at all.

[woolybanana] 04/6/2015 12:21

Do not underestimate just how stubborn the old man can be; if he can get some unscrupulous lawyer to tell him there is a mistake in law, he will appeal it, just in the hope that Atlantis might go away.

[naphar] 04/6/2015 12:04

Bobsworth
I think it may only be updated on Fridays. That's certainly the case with one page I am checking.

[bobsworth] 04/6/2015 11:02

Still no change to status on Montana DNRC Site

[superg1] 04/6/2015 10:59

To add.

Looking at other appeals and logically, appeals are normally (probably exclusively) based on believed mistakes in law. IE the aggrieved party raises an appeal based on a legal point where they consider the HE has got it wrong, misinterpreted the law it etc.

IF Carlisle lost then as in the notes an appeal on costs would be substantial for him, as he would be the one having to do all the work.

The more you read the more you realise that sentiment about an old local guy, doesn't not feature in any way.

As an example.

The SQM/CORFO case.

I did read it and the point in the supreme court is whether the SQM breach of the lease deal is material. I forget the actual word used.

If material then CORFO can rescind the leases, if a casual oversight re the non payment of royalties, then they can't.

SQM believe it's not material and therefore the lease can not be rescinded. CORFO believe otherwise.

[nashwan123] 04/6/2015 10:56

IF Iofina know the outcome then surely the brokers would too and the share price would have mysteriously risen a penny or two!

[superg1] 04/6/2015 09:59

Although it mentions it in the handbook I can't find appeals in here.



The hearings procedure and final order rules are listed.

[odvod] 04/6/2015 09:50

an observation - it is a binary event. Better to have a cup of tea than to analyse it ad infinitum