Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[severnof9] 05/6/2015 10:40

Ok Super I accept your point. Then Let us secure the LOIs for the full volume we are applying for. The point is the department are not acting lawfully with a requirement for half the volume in the first instance

[phoenixs] 05/6/2015 10:36

superg, I totally agree with your last post. The problem may well be that the HE does not realise the illegality of signing contracts without a guarantee of supply. If he does realise it, then in IMHO he has been a complete idiot or it's just friends at work and he has just completely stuffed anyone who wants a water permit to supply a third party in Montana.

[superg1] 05/6/2015 10:36

Severn

re

'We sign the contracts'

As in the last post they can't as such contracts are not allowed under US law.

The water law mentioning of contracts required is a red herring. Instead of changing the law they added in LOIs as allowable.

This is a new era for water and the current laws don't cover those aspects.

North Dakota has dozens of permits all issued on the back of LOIs.

The staff and systems need to catch up. I note they didn't ask Dry prairie (municipal supply) to list how much bath water each resident they were going to supply use each year. They also don't require an LOI from every resident either.

So you can see IOF in this case have been unfavourably treated v all other permits.

[odvod] 05/6/2015 10:34

At the end of it it is about the people who make decisions (and not the rules you stupid) and the old man won them over!!! If there is a strong free reading - we got one. As much as I hate it the message must get into my brain. State has spoken.

What is HEs liability if he is wrong? What is our legal and water expert team's liability if they are wrong? And I should keep on paying the fees which I can easily do. heh

[freshvoicem] 05/6/2015 10:34

Severn
I think your review of the law is correct.
The fact that an office/officers have been ignoring the law is not a justification to continue the practice.

We most probably shot ourselves in the foot by revealing how many previous cases had been based on insufficient evidence.

[superg1] 05/6/2015 10:29

Severn

re

'I think the appeal will fail and the better course of action is to get firm contracts in place for the entire volume of water sought in the application for a permit and reapply. We know we satisfy every other requirement for a permit to be awarded.'

'The HE has taken away the discretion of the department with his interpretation of the law by requiring specific contracts that ultimately commit by contract an end user to purchase water'

In the US it is illegal to have a signed contract for something you can't yet supply.

So when they say it's difficult, it's because it's illegal. Hence the water law re contracts is a dud and that's why they accept LOIs.

I had that conversation at an AGM re contracts v LOIs.

Before someone says it IOF have a contract with Halliburton, but that contract can be served through the water discharge permit so it's legal.

It doesn't apply a water right not yet in place.

That is one example why it's complicated.

So if the HE as you suggest is demanding contracts first, then he is setting the foundation for illegal contracts to be signed before anyone can get a permit.

That's why LOIs are all that is required, with an expectation that they will be converted to contracts post award of a permit.

[severnof9] 05/6/2015 10:27

Che7win

We are not back at square 1 we have had all other aspects of the application reviewed and approved. We sign the contracts pay the fee resubmit the application with the contracts and we have a determination within the prescribed time period.

Any objection would have to be valid to go to a hearing

I suspect that it will be quicker to do that than to appeal and it will entail far less risk.

[odvod] 05/6/2015 10:19

Reminds me of the Nevada gambling commission. Take notice and study!
USA for me
Just go back to the basics and focus on the future and not on the past is mho

[che7win] 05/6/2015 10:15

Severn, Do they really expect firm contracts for a process that can take over two years?Reapplying isn't an option, it puts us back to square 1.

[odvod] 05/6/2015 10:11

"Something is amiss within the “cheer-leading” cartel. I believe they themselves are beginning to realize what people like myself and a few others have been saying: “Once the residual effects since the ending of QE are no longer present, the realization and picture of what truly is the fundamental economy will become ever and ever clearer.”

.....And just 6 months later, that picture is not looking pretty. Especially to those that told (and sold) the illusion to clients and media audiences. The real issue is that the image is developing far quicker than they themselves had anticipated, and seem to be scurrying around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to find an exit ramp to some form of credibility saving grace. "

"Back in November of last year I was taken to task by some when I penned the article “Why Tony Robbins Is Asking The Wrong Questions”"

"Now all the so-called “smart crowd are hoping for is that the narrative of “bad is good, and worse is fantastic!” still applies."

one can change some words

[uppompeii] 05/6/2015 09:58

Well they have a water expert on board, you'd think it would have all been taken into consideration.

[odvod] 05/6/2015 09:57

Well who cares about the debt? Or the cost of the justice? Who cares how much does it cost as long as the management proves who is right. With ours money, not theirs. Just buy if it is cheap!!!! Who cares about the future interest rates. Liquidity. Iodine prices. About who can stay longer solvent - markets or investors. Buy at this discounted price if you like it.
does it sound like commodity?

Warren notbuffett

[woolybanana] 05/6/2015 09:57

What is clear here, I think, is that the Montana Water Board realised that they had been screwed by Ames and co and decided to change the criteria applying to water rights, basically tightening up the rules; where they have been less than open is that they did not announce this change, simply applied it.

Secondly, one must not underestimate the power of the Good Ol' Boy network in any State.

[severnof9] 05/6/2015 09:57

I think the appeal will fail and the better course of action is to get firm contracts in place for the entire volume of water sought in the application for a permit and reapply. We know we satisfy every other requirement for a permit to be awarded.

The preliminary determination says:

44. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 85-2-310 (9)(v)(D) states that if water will be marketed
to other users, a firm contractual agreement must be provided, which is to include the specified
amount of water for each person using the water. The Department has previously recognized
that it is difficult to obtain contractual commitments when an applicant does not yet have a water
right to sell water, so the Department requires letters of intent to purchase water with
applications for water marketing use in which the total volume of the letters is equal to or greater
than 50% of the volume requested in the application.

The HE says in his Final order

13. The determination of whether an application has satisfied the § 85-2-311, MCA criteria is committed to the discretion of the Department. Bostwick Properties, Inc. v. Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2009 MT 181, ¶ 21. The Department is required to grant a permit only if the § 85-2-311, MCA, criteria are proven by the applicant by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. A preponderance of evidence is “more probably than not.” Hohenlohe v. DNRC, 2010 MT 203, ¶¶33, 35. It is the Applicant’s burden to produce the required evidence. Sitz Ranch v. DNRC, DV-10-13390, Fifth Judicial District Court, Order Affirming DNRC Decision, (2011) Pg. 7; In the Matter of Application to Change Water Right No. 41H 1223599 by MGRR #1, LLC. (DNRC Final Order 2005).

The HE has taken away the discretion of the department with his interpretation of the law by requiring specific contracts that ultimately commit by contract an end user to purchase water

Montana law imposes additional criteria upon applicants who apply for a water marketing permit as found in § 85-2-310(9)(a)(v), MCA:
(v) except as provided in subsection (10), if the water applied for is to be appropriated above that which will be used solely by the applicant or if it will be marketed by the applicant to other users, information detailing:
(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; …

These marketing criteria are analyzed as part of the beneficial use criteria in a permit proceeding.

The requirement in D above is for the contractual agreement for the specified amount of water for each person using the water

The HE is right to indicate that an application should fail unless there are contracts in place for all otherwise there are grounds to argue speculation

These are the words the HE uses in para 37

In order to establish the requisite bona fide intent with regard of marketing water for sale, the plain language of § 85-2-310(9)(c), MCA, requires proof regarding each person using the water, the amount of water each person will use, and “the existence of a firm contractual agreement” for the amount of water being used by each person.

The HE relies on 2 cases both of which required contracts for all water being sought

In Sitz Ranch, of the 800 AF/yr requested by the applicant, the evidence only supported beneficial use of 200 – 300 AF/yr. The applicant argued that it should be granted a permit for the full 800 AF/yr, and at some point of time in the future the amount actually needed could be determined and the permits could be reduced to actual beneficial use at that time. The district court rejected this argument


Other prior appropriation states that follow the anti-speculation doctrine have imposed similar “firm contractual agreement” requirements on appropriators who seek water for marketing. In Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Vidler Tunnel Water Company, 594 P.2d 566 (Colo. 1979), the Colorado Supreme Court looked at an application by a private enterprise seeking to market water for municipal use and determined the applicant failed to establish the necessary intent to put water to beneficial and was speculative:

I believe the Departments policy of accepting contracts for half of the amount being sought is flawed. A Judicial review will fail. It would be far better to get contracts in place and to reapply for a permit. Surely this is just as quick as appealing and far more certain

[alphacharlie] 05/6/2015 09:46

Tar auphilman. Was hoping someone would know a more direct route . . .

[auphilman] 05/6/2015 09:43

you tube maybe ?

[alphacharlie] 05/6/2015 09:38

Anyone tell me how to add an mp3 file to a post? I've just knocked up a 12 bar rendition of the 'Montana Dead Dog Blues' and I'd like to share it . . .

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/6/2015 09:32

Oh dear, looks like my 20p valuation won't be far off the mark once the traders have gone. You okay Graham?

[odvod] 05/6/2015 09:28

well - how the debt situation will be resolved? I am waiting for the strategic review. Considering they could spend another 1 mill on the lawyers. Any thoughts?

This is a very good investment IF no debt. Another long term investment for me. OBT TAIH SEY ...

The above have no debt and generate cash but this one needs clarification of the debt before I hold and wait.

[senden11] 05/6/2015 09:27

Got these damn shares coming out of my ears but just had to snap up another chunk at 26.8 - a steal based on the company's rapidly increasing iodine production (probable record quarterly figures due out next month) in a market which seems to have bottomed and likely to spring back very soon. NAI

[che7win] 05/6/2015 09:00

Superg, Thanks, so in that case, this ruling should now deny Ames from operating the way he is. It is unlawful for him to sell to anyone not on his application. I think IOF should bring up all these inconsistencies now as part of the hearing.No wonder they are strongly going to contest this.

[superg1] 05/6/2015 08:53

Che

re
Superg,
Those water depots now operating though presumably have customers taking their water, so they have factual proof of demand, but I take your point.

As pointed out recently, 2 Ames buyers (LOI providers) haven't bought a drop off him. They were nevr going to, they were false LOis, one was him using another company he owns to provide an LOI.

He sold bits and pieces to 50 companies that he has no apparent contracts with and virtually nothing to other LOIs he has.

IOF LOI's are considerably more detailed than anything Ames has provided.

The best LOIs come from Pease ranch and Carlisle but none of them list the detail this HE has demanded.

So he has more or less deemed every such permit as wrongly awarded. So in real terms he has potentially created a complete mess for the industry.

Any such permit that is currently in the application stage should now in theory be denied.

So you can see why IOF are challenging it, they have provided far more detail than 90% of the current permits, and equal to the best examples, and have genuine buyers.

The Bureau request to put in less detail in an LOI is interesting. That LOI should exist somewhere.

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 08:51

Yes Mister Big has gone very quiet I agree!... shows you the danger in following bulls...To be fair he could still be right in the medium term, 12-18 months say...

[masurenguy] 05/6/2015 08:46

mister big - 03 Apr 14 - 18344: Hovered up another 400,000 today at over 60p, so i'm voting with my feet.... target 1.25p in six months or so

mister big - 18382: if Mr Market lowers the price i will be all over it again - i think the bad news is out and the next few announcements will confirm the story intact..... 85% on the water permit which is an added bonus and not in any calculation

mister big - 6 Apr'14 - 18445: I'll take 1.20 invested at 51p! Over three years that's good enough

mister big - 19 Apr'14 - 19248: I value iofina £1.25 without water or in fact oil possibilities. The company is producing iodine from 5 plants and iof 6 scheduled to go online before end of 2nd quarter.

mister big - 19339: The main issue here is people that over paid for stock. I believe fair value is around £1.25p.

mister big - 18 Sep 2014 - 24621: Let's see production was static at 21 mt , and everyone frantic and running around like the end of the world . The latest estimates or forecasts are set so management can beat them. Meanwhile have bought 450k shares at sub 45, so thanks to the good folks who handed them over. Yawn back to the pool ....!

mister big - 18 Sep 2014 - 24586: Fest - Hoover switched on and sucking lol. This stock is a master class in how to invest and how not to invest !

mister big - 18 Sep 2014 - 24593: The steaks are on the grill and sizzling !!
Lol picked up 250 at around 44p and lots of lemmings lining up

So where is that investment genius mister big today? Nothing to say about his "master class in how to invest and how not to invest" or the latest developments at IOF where he is sitting on some substantial losses by the looks of it. His fan club seem to have gone very quiet too !

I did highlight a few facts about him here last year but was attacked by his fan club so just left them to lap up his great words of wisdom !