Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bocker01] 08/12/2014 11:03

Sancier, as I am sure you are aware there is a phrase in UK law called lifting the corporate veil. In which case as I understand the two different legal entities are considered in certain circumstances as one. Presumably Montana has something similar? What are you thoughts on the relevance of this?

[rogerbridge] 08/12/2014 10:19

I agree, best let IOF deal with this SG, I wold not want this to blow up without IOF being in control of the situation over there.
Top marks for your investigative efforts.

[sancler] 08/12/2014 10:16

superg1

I imagine (although I do not know for certain as it rests on Montana law rather than UK law) that what matters is the LEGAL personalities of the different parties, rather than just whether the same individual HUMAN BEINGS are involved on both sides.

So that Joe Bloggs has an interest, even a controlling interest, in both the buyer and the seller on an LOI does not necessarily mean that the buyer and the seller are the same person. If Joe Bloggs is, in UK terms, a "sole trader" on both sides of the equation then it would be a deal with himself. But if the deal is between the ABC Company on the one hand and the XYZ Company on the other (both of which Joe Bloggs controls) then, whilst in practice it obviously increases the possibility that some fiddle is involved, from a legal perspective the deal is between two different legal entities.

In UK terms, the issue of deals between two different legal personalities that in practice have the same controlling mind would be dealt with, for example, by the concept of an "arm's length" transaction. My take was that the phrase "strictly business" on some of the LOIs I have seen was how Montana law was reflecting a similar concept.

Perhaps your recent researches have already taken that point on board. If so, sorry for trying to teach granny to suck eggs.

[awolagain] 08/12/2014 09:49

I can see the out come here....the writing is on the wall. Great stuff Woody....keep it coming and I am sure the BOD will love it too.

I think the low 30p will be seen in less than a month as a wasted opportunity to buy at these prices.

GLA

[hew] 08/12/2014 09:34

Superg, care needed. UXB?

[superg1] 08/12/2014 09:34

Mad is is shocking which is a bit of an understatement

My thoughts were why were there no objections to other water depot permits, or if there were what was the outcome.

There are no objections from water depots as it seems many of them are the same folk using different staff or connections to apply.

Some letters of intent are the permit owner also acting as the buyer but under the guise of Agri inc and some letters signed with names apparently not authorised to do so.

They even have the cheek to write in one LOI supporting a new permit and depot because the other depots are so expansive, yet those depots are the same owner.

I will complete the digging and create a report. I'm not just thinking about any hearing but any future applications IOF may wish to do.

Under water laws you can not apply under a rule of speculation of sales.

Some depots 'owners' seem to be 'selling' water to themselves as contracted customers.

In other words imo it looks like they have fabricated LOIs to gain permits and then are speculating that someone may buy the water for the oil industry.

As in IOF's permit it's states all buyers must have contracts.


Sancler raised the point'He found it "astonishing" that the bureau had refused IOF having approved many other similar applications.

Astonishing just doesn't do it justice when you look a little deeper.

I'm sure IOF will love such evidence for near term or future use.

[madchick] 08/12/2014 08:49

superg - great work, but it's completely shocking!

Just as well IOF are making their own luck, they certainly didn't get any given to them (well, apart from the Chile situation..., although IOF haven't seen the benefits of that yet).

[superg1] 08/12/2014 08:49

One more comment (he says) then I'll wait until I've got all the details together.

In one letter of intent the seller (iverson) has signed it stating they have no financial or other interest in the company listed as the buyer.

The buyer is a Michael D Nash. I've not looked him yet.

The relevant point is the declaration which makes me suspect it was required.

Yet in this web of apparent deceit there are a number of LOIs where the seller does have a financial interest in the.

I've now established John Ames is the President of Agri industries, yet this is the 'buyer' sending in letters of intent for many of the Ames water permit applications to meet the beneficial use criteria.

So that in theory would be like IOF doing the LOI's for Atlantis which I'm pretty sure would have been refused.

[superg1] 08/12/2014 07:51

Oh I'm having a ball here.

I was just checking a permit for Constance Iverson and found (you guessed it) a letter of intent from good old Agri industries?

But it's signed by another Iverson. The bureau queried this and Agri industries sent a letter stating who could sign on their behalf, which including Iverson and lists 4 others including John Ames.

The same John Ames that has permits with LOIs from Agri industries. However the people they list that are authorised to sign I don't recognise as names I saw on other Agri industry LOIs, those letters were never questions.

Agri as far as I know are not in the business of supplying water to the oil industry, well at least their business description on their site doesn't mention it.

It's all looking like one big John Ames and co wheel of deception from where I'm sitting. I've not even scratched the surface yet.

Take it to a hearing and let's have it all out there, as I suspect a number of permits and depots will have their allocation slashed or maybe rescinded. :-)

[superg1] 08/12/2014 07:35

I forgot to mention.

Each year the depots have to submit reports re non use and justify continued allowance of the full amount under the use it or lose it rule.

So each year in theory if their original application is 'suspect' then they keep repeating false information to retain the full allocation.

[superg1] 08/12/2014 07:29

Oh I fully intend to read every last word of every water depot, and list any details that are suspicious which so far seems to be a large portion of the ones I've read.

The one main issue as being a genuine supplier at most of these depots is the number of filling points which just wouldn't be feasible to service someone like Halliburton. Hot water points seem thin on the ground too.

It seems to me that a particular person at the bureau has not been unbiased in their view. Going on the refusal of IOF's permit for beneficial use, based on water speculation, then that makes the other permit decisions look at best incompetent.

Even if we don't have to go to a hearing I'll still be sending it all off for future reference for IOF and others.

[hurricane.] 07/12/2014 23:28

Fisheries not valid ?
:)

[bobsworth] 07/12/2014 23:04

Yes good work SG. Thanks

[ansana] 07/12/2014 22:56

SG I forgot to say, fantastic detective work. Thank you.

[ansana] 07/12/2014 21:09

Might be better to contact IOF who in turn can pass it onto their lawyers who are in place. If they aren't aware of this it should encourage them to get a move on.

[rogerbridge] 07/12/2014 19:53

Let's hope that it does not come to that and the objection is dismissed

[pcjoe] 07/12/2014 19:49

Suggest you inform the Dragon lady ( Copied to senior Montanan state officials) of your findings SG once you have firmed up your investigations - Another "enquiry" might be in order to investigate the Depts previous behaviour - Sounds like incompetence at least and possible corruption at worst.....

[rogerbridge] 07/12/2014 19:38

That could open a can of worms SG.

[superg1] 07/12/2014 18:38

I'm having 'fun' here. I am in some ways (don't strike me down)hoping IOF can have a round 2 at another hearing for any valid objection.

However my fun would have to be based on a beneficial use claim as I'm finding quite a den of apparent deception (subject to checking water laws) for the other permits.

For certain depots and applicants a bit of a pattern is emerging.

EG I mentioned wild cat trucking who have 13 trucks and 12 drivers. 3 permits checked and a total of 900 acre feet so far. I have about 15 to check.

They can't possibly truck 400 acre feet in one LOI let alone 900 acre feet in 3.

Then Agri industries feature again, letters signed by folk addressing it to John Ames the water permit applicant. One states how expensive water can be so they are keen for John to build a depot. It seems to me John Ames owns Agri and Agri don't do water supply to the oil industry. So he is providing letters to himself but someone else at Agri signing them. If that is allowed then why doesn't Mr Ames simply identify his own need for his own company as part of the permit application.


TNT well services are another repetitive LOI buyer ??? I need to do some more work on them.

The issue being is if IOF have to go through the beneficial use point again at a hearing, it's potentially going to be very embarrassing for Denise Biggar and co who have been signing these permits off without a thought.

Yet when IOF provide genuine LOIs they question the validity of them and allege water speculation.

[henry9th1] 06/12/2014 22:58

Quite right Arlington, final bear trap sellers all but dried up and time to fly or flee if short. Kind regards William

[engelo] 06/12/2014 20:12

Good to hear there's a kinder side to the US attitude to wildlife: they generally shoot anything that moves from squirrels to bears ;-)



edit back in Montana



Don't get sucked in: sounds as bad as the water laws :-)

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/12/2014 19:11

Doubt you even grasp my point.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/12/2014 17:14

They're winding you up Graham, stick a volume chart in the header bud.

[superg1] 06/12/2014 16:43

Sancler I forgot some extra bits re wording.

First of all it only affects endangered species which are the Least tern, Piping plover and the Pallid Sturgeon. Two of those are birds.

The offence is to take them

Take is defined as

“Take” is defined in the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

The main problem is fishing, as fishing is allowed for Shovel-nosed sturgeon. Those fish are almost identical to Pallid Sturgeon.

Look how daft their own claims are:

Shovelnose sturgeon so closely resemble pallid sturgeon that the two species are difficult to differentiate. Law enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the two sturgeon species. The roe of the two species cannot be distinguished by genetic analysis, making it difficult to enforce the regulations to prevent harvest of pallid sturgeon and their roe.
Commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon has resulted in the harvest of pallid sturgeon. This harvest of pallid sturgeon significantly affects the survival and recovery of the species in some portions of its range.

That's a paragraph that contradicts itself. EG, "We can't even tell them apart genetically and as a result of fishing for the other types Pallid sturgeon are harvested"

Yet they don't know if the fish harvested are Pallid sturgeon.

So commercial fishing which is allowed may be destroying them but they can't tell.

The Culbertson objection re that point is farcical.

IOF on their screen should add a sign saying, Shovel-nosed sturgeon feeding area, no access is afforded to Pallid sturgeon, fish will be challenged to produce identification. IOF point out that we have no intent to take or engage you. Fish that chew through the carbon steel screen do so at their own risk. *Warning suction risk* They could add the number for the Samaritans just in case some see it as an opportunity.