Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 14/8/2013 08:03

Macca Re this

'Unfortunately that will probably not be the case (there are a few anomalies with DPWA'a 'May' application, such as the actual application being dated in March rather earlier than declared on the DNRC website where the 'application received' date reflects the 18th May public objection deadline), the application is far more likely to mirror the process seen for other commercial water marketers such as John M Ames and his ilk than the apparently bizarre DPWA grant process.


If you paid attention you would have seen the process in action. If you really knew where to look you could have watched the notice period action too.

The date that finally appears, once is the final deadline date is known, it is the same on all applications.

[the librarian] 14/8/2013 07:59

maca won't answer those superg, can't help laughing when maca posts now it's like groundhog day, same old thing time and time again, like this video of his namesake.

[ansana] 14/8/2013 07:58

I received this a while ago
"we believe
all our ducks are in a row and we shouldn't have any problems getting the permit approved" I see the first naysayer of the day has received a counter punch with the glove being stuffed full of facts.

[noli] 14/8/2013 07:53

Re new rules SG, i understand that etc, so iof have said quite recently they are hunting for new letters of intent. We know they had 10k ac of customers as that was the original iof application so why hunt for more. Could that mention be for ND or another area or even an increase in montana.

[superg1] 14/8/2013 07:43

Noli if you rewind to the JV. Hal wanted a JV for all the water 100k bpd in Montana and 100k bpd in ND.

However out of the blue IOF applied for 10k acres feet in Montana (now split into 3) and intend to do the same in ND.

Now the rules of the water divs are that you can't simply apply for a permit, then go on the hunt for customers. The beneficial need has to be identified pre application and stated.


Oh yes, that question still hasn't been answered by Macca.

Why did they split the 10k acre application in 3.

I'll help. One aspect is about putting the depots where the demand is, as that improves margins as you can charge more for water supply that is closer to the need area. It's all to do with haulage costs.

But what is the main reason. I don't want the rns answer, all can see that.

Then while your on it, I've mentioned haulage costs.

What are the haulage costs for water.

What about hot water, who has the best opex? and what is it?

[jointer13] 14/8/2013 07:40

the bashers

they said the tech doesn't work....wrong

they said we wouldn't get the patent ....wrong

they said we wouldn't get the water...we are not far off

what next..?

[superg1] 14/8/2013 07:32

Oh
and one more for now just to keep you busy.

Where is the best ppm brine in Texas.

Then can you please provide a list of all Oil and gas operators in that area, and exactly which leases/sectors they are on.

I'll check it against my report that a compiled some time back.

If IOF start talking plants in Texas, for the later roll out, I'll start 'guessing' where that may be.

[noli] 14/8/2013 07:01

I was always under the impression that iof had to show they had usage or customers that require the water with letters of intent.

IOF have shown that use in the application submitted otherwise it would not have got this far down the line. Haliburton have already said they want 100k bpd in montana. There's always competition in any business and the water market is no different.

Only a few days now imho and we move onto the public hearing, so expect this granted. IOF have already said they have been marketing for further letters of intent for the next permit(s).

[the librarian] 13/8/2013 23:31

LOL, just close the short maca, don't be greedy now.... you will feel much better for it!

[john10] 13/8/2013 23:18

Yes Maca: What did you say you were invested in?

[maca1212] 13/8/2013 22:51

Hmm,

I think someone may have made the mistake of assuming that the application process for IOF's Atlantis Water marketing foray would mirror that undertaken for Dry Prairie Water Authority (DPWA) based upon dates published on the DNRC website.

Unfortunately that will probably not be the case (there are a few anomalies with DPWA'a 'May' application, such as the actual application being dated in March rather earlier than declared on the DNRC website where the 'application received' date reflects the 18th May public objection deadline), the application is far more likely to mirror the process seen for other commercial water marketers such as John M Ames and his ilk than the apparently bizarre DPWA grant process.

BTW I hadn't particularly clocked it before but I notice that Dry Prairie bill themselves as a "municipal, industrial, and rural water system for Valley, Daniels, Sheridan and Roosevelt counties".

Not particularly daunting as a frack water supply competitor in Montana at the moment given that the rig activity seems to be south rather than north of the Missouri (and therefore outside of Dry Prairies' 3200 mile pipeline network), but the opportunities for water marketing in the area north of the Missouri must be severely compromised by Dry Prairies' 'industrial' supply capabilities and network?

I also note that John M. Ames (an established water marketer abstracting from the Missouri in Roosevelt and I believe elsewhere in Montana?) is presumably unable to sell all of his abstraction capacity in Montana at the moment - his latest application is for a variation to his right to allow a portion of the water abstracted in Roosevelt to be sold over the border in ND - strange given the competitive pressures over there as described here:

hxxp://www.cnbc.com/id/100749381

I am sure that the drilling will cross into Montana in more force, but it would appear there are already several water marketing competitors active in this area, and that currently there is spare capacity - could it be the case that this business may not be quite the blank cheque that has been touted?

Bad research again on my part undoubtedly, will I ever learn?

BTW this made me smile:

"That entry tells you it is on the desk of the guy reviewing it, and has been looking at it today."

Surely SG you are not implying that IOF have hidden cameras inside the Montana Water Bureau?

That wouldn't be cricket :-)

M

[rugrat2] 13/8/2013 22:12

Sg - re 6971 - never say no to new info. By the way, dare I mention 'the other place' - I've never had a direction to the site/login - could you oblige?

[n3tleylucas] 13/8/2013 21:20

Monty, instead of droning on about ASOS - the similarities continue to evade me - why not talk about HMV? They were well shorted for years mate, how much are they now?

[diggulden] 13/8/2013 21:01

Agreed SG. We have been saying for weeks that the website is slow to update.... next step, Application Deemed Correct and then we are rolling into public notices.

[superg1] 13/8/2013 20:29

Dig

IOF said in the last rns re the water permit that they had employed an engineering firm to finalise things and that would be complete by mid this month.

That entry tells you it is on the desk of the guy reviewing it, and has been looking at it today.

So looking good on that front, and things could move quickly, I've seen it on other applications.

[warmsun] 13/8/2013 20:03

Well done dig, thanks very much!

[bogg1e] 13/8/2013 19:35

dig thanks

[engelo] 13/8/2013 19:08

Thanks digg. Presumably posting that status means no more stuff from 28.06 outstanding. Looking close now :-)

[rhwillcol] 13/8/2013 18:56

Many thanks diggulden: that is excellent.

[diggulden] 13/8/2013 18:51

Water application update. Deficiency response received and updated on website. Won't be long now until prelim approval.

[everybodywangchungtonight] 13/8/2013 17:58

Ansana topping-up 8p higher than you needed to.
Thumbs up - karma

EWCT