Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 08/10/2014 09:55

Aha

Something was said at the end of last week that made no sense at all as it wasn't feasible.

I won't explain in detail here, but it was surrounding a reduction of something.

I put up some options re the possibilities, but it now seems they may have been right but slightly on the wrong track.

The 'rumour' now makes sense if right.

I suspect someone wanted a chunk of shares and Stena have been approached and provided them.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 08/10/2014 09:51

So you're left with Mr Dependable Aaron Banks to bail you out. Oh dear, you'd better start making money very fast.

[gadolinium] 08/10/2014 09:48

Thanks super and cyber for the water application analysis, you have obviously put a lot of work into this.
Appreciated.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 08/10/2014 09:42

Oh dear, all this erm good news and Stena start selling! lol

Sounds like they've had enough.

[deadend] 08/10/2014 09:39

Surely don't need the money?

[crazycoops] 08/10/2014 09:38

Last time Stena reduced was shortly prior to the $15m convertible bond being issued.

[cyberbub] 08/10/2014 09:37

Dont understand, it says they had zero shares before the transaction?

[che7win] 08/10/2014 09:25

Maybe Dr Fay is an influence?

[che7win] 08/10/2014 09:23

Maybe Stena is going to fund the water, who knows.

[che7win] 08/10/2014 09:23

Ahhh, so now I know why the rise was killed off on such good news.


Thank you Stena, we would be in the 60s or higher otherwise.

[spike_1] 08/10/2014 09:23

Stena may be / have been selling, but clearly someone is happily picking them up.

[orslega] 08/10/2014 09:18

strange time for Stena to sell a few....

[superg1] 08/10/2014 08:36

If he lives in Montana with water rights downstream of the Atlantis permit then he can do so. Wasting his time though as the hearing examiner has already declared there is no adverse effect. :-)

It will all help towards the xmas lunch so I suspect donations are welcome.

[stevo2011] 08/10/2014 08:32

SG macca would fork out 25 USD for an objection lol

[superg1] 08/10/2014 08:24

So going back to the VALID objection point.

The hearing examiner has said all points other than F to H are proven. F to H don't look relevant.

So any objection could only be for points A to E. Then the bureau consider if they are valid. Knowing that valid objections go before the hearing examiner who has already signed them off as proven for no adverse effect.

The hearing case with the points already covered seems.

Now I understand why they say " barring any unlikely objections".

That bugged me too, as surely with my limited understanding they should have put, barring any unlikely VALID objections.

But if you think about it, why would anyone fork out $25 for an objection against the points the hearing examiner has already shown as proven. The bureau in theory would immediately reject it as not valid and refer the objector to the hearing decision.

So imo that's why IOF put the line "barring any unlikely objections" in.

Obviously my view and findings could be entirely wrong so DYOR but common sense seems to suggest it may be the right understanding of it.

Why else put such a line in with all the past performance. I thought it was brave, but have since read the water laws.

[superg1] 08/10/2014 08:02

CK

I'm quite pleased with that point if right. 'Valid objection' has been bugging me re it's meaning when the points have already been proved.

Also I've been thinking why IOF would put unlikely in the rns considering the past.

Details noticed this morning pre kids doing their nagging. Being nagged right now so will have to confirm later, but it's looking like points f to h are the only ones available and some points at least look only relevant to aquifers.

It doesn't look like a valid objection is viable hence the unlikely comment.

[captain_kurt] 08/10/2014 07:45

Good to hear! Well done Superg1.
Keep it coming

[superg1] 08/10/2014 07:41

Here is why I mention the 'valid objection' point.

(2) The applicant is required to prove that the criteria in subsections (1)(f) through (1)(h) have been met only if a valid objection is filed. A valid objection must contain substantial credible information establishing to the satisfaction of the department that the criteria in subsection (1)(f), (1)(g), or (1)(h), as applicable, may not be met. For the criteria set forth in subsection (1)(g), only the department of environmental quality or a local water quality district established under Title 7, chapter 13, part 45, may file a valid objection.

An objection involves a hearing. A hearing has already proved the all the other points.

So imo it's highly likely the only points an objector could raise are under the list above and then only valid if.....

A valid objection contains substantial credible information establishing to the satisfaction of the department that the it meets the criteria above.


Those points are

(f) the water quality of a prior appropriator will not be adversely affected;

(g) the proposed use will be substantially in accordance with the classification of water set for the source of supply pursuant to 75-5-301(1); and
h) the ability of a discharge permit holder to satisfy effluent limitations of a permit issued in accordance with Title 75, chapter 5, part 4, will not be adversely affected.


Personally on first glance, I think there is no chance at all of an adverse effect re those points. Then an objector would have to go to extraordinary lengths to create and environmental type report to support the objection.

I'm going to spend some time reading up on it, as it may be that the odds of an objection are virtually nil, and the issue of the permit nailed on.

I've only just started looking but at first glance it seems to be good news.

Had the permit been awarded straight away without a hearing then it seems the basic points A to E were open to objection too, but as a hearing examiner has already signed then off as proven they are not available to object against imo, leaving the unlikely route of f to g.

[superg1] 08/10/2014 07:28

Cyber has it nailed

"I interpret the DNRC table to mean that the 'Yes' is the preliminary decision, and the date is the deadline for objections."

The bureau does a public notice by putting it in the local papers. There are countless types of public notices form air permits, wells drills, sewerage, water permits. Everything gets a public notice period.

Fest $25 a pop on an objection, and the key 'valid objection' :-).

IOF have already proved their is no adverse effect and it's been accepted by the bureau.

A VALID objection may be far more difficult to claim than we think. The reason being there may already be excluded options on that for objectors, as the adverse effect issue has been proved to be not relevant and the water legally available. Sometimes an objection option can only be for water quality, which is more to do with aquifer extraction/contamination.

It's a point I intend to read up on to see what amounts to a 'valid objection' in this particular case. The fact it has already been to a water hearing with an independent examiner may have already wiped out some potential objection points.

It may explain why IOF put that an objection is unlikely.

[cyberbub] 08/10/2014 00:02

OK no worries. That's enough research for one night, I am off to bed!

[sancler] 07/10/2014 23:57

Cyberbub

Yes, which is why I started by saying "It probably amounts to the same thing"

[cyberbub] 07/10/2014 23:52

Sancler, is that not what I just said, more or less??

45 days could also refer to '45 working days', if 'publication' means on the website.

Anyway these fine points are largely irrelevant - the key point is it should be early December! No later than Friday 12th December, more likely Friday 5th December... I believe we will find out this Friday 10th October!

NAI DYOR