Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[naphar] 17/12/2014 23:17

So can you only sell to someone who supplied an LOI at time of application?
Businesses go bust. Surely you can sell to someone you have a valid contract with, even if they did not supply an LOI at application time?

[che7win] 17/12/2014 22:31

Maybe one of the objections might be withdrawn ;-)

[superg1] 17/12/2014 22:25

IOF can use evidence in other accepted and awarded permits to support their claim.

You can see how embarrassing it would become as letters of intent for other permits are introduced as exhibits, with evidence of who owns the businesses and who filled out forms, signed and accepted by the same folk that raised so many issues.

As I said before, a turkey shoot.

[superg1] 17/12/2014 22:16

This is the bit I love that the water bureau (Denise) raised re beneficial use.

The Montana Water Use Act does not support speculation in water rights. Applicants must come forward with a defined plan for beneficial use. While water for sale is a recognized beneficial use, it is marketing for a specific end use.

48. The letters of intent do not explain the nature of the relationship between the applicant and each person using the water.

Based upon this language, it appears that the amount of water identified in the letter of intent is speculative in that it is based upon assumptions rather than a specified and identifiable need.

She then goes on about the extensive points needed re each user etc etc.

The hearing examiner said they are not unlike others previously approved, which happen to be signed off by her.

As in other posts some entire permits were awarded with basic letters saying water marketing and strictly business and she was happy with that and signed them off.

Strictly business were the words to cover point 48 above, letters from one Ames business (Agri) to the applicant Ames, but none of the LOIs are ever signed by Ames.

This is what will come out in at any hearing. If those were signed off why couldn't Iofina have provided the LOIs for Atlantis, after all they do have 300,000 acres of oil potential to exploit.

So if you think an Iofina LOI to Atlantis would be against the rules, why isn't Agri to Ames water solutions. Agri have no acreage and don't supply to the oil industry.

I don't consider for a minute that an Iofina letter would be allowed, yet 3 Ames permits exist with those type of LOIs. One permit is entirely based on an LOI to himself.

The hearing examiner raised the not unlike point.

[che7win] 17/12/2014 22:06

Thanks Superg,
I can understand how keen Halliburton were to be listed on a LOI with us...it effectively blocks competition for them.

I thought that interesting...yet they could market the water to whoever.

[superg1] 17/12/2014 21:59

Some points.

In analyzing adverse effect to other appropriators, an applicant may use the water rights claims of potentially affected appropriators as evidence of their “historic beneficial use.”



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.

[superg1] 17/12/2014 21:41

That's correct Chewin each permit awarded states on it they can only sell to those people they have contracts with.

The reason they use letters of intent is because in the US you can't do a supply contract with someone for something you haven't yet got.

The bureau want contracts for permits, but with that being a problem they take letters of intent with the understanding they will convert to contracts post award of the permit.

EG

Culbertson water depot has LOIs with

MLB consulting 443 AF

Arrowhead Oil 600 AF

Western company of Texas 800 AF

Red Oak water transfer Inc 443 AF


Total 2286 AF, but their permit is only for 1843 AF.

If he turned those into contracts as he should have done then all his allocation and more is contracted to the list businesses.

How are IOF going to take his business as he claims, Halliburton and others with IOF are not listed with him.

Going back to the Culbertson clot he states this in the objection

'A fifth misrepresentation is the fact that no indication has been given for the number of well sites in the service area to be drilled.'


It doesn't in his or anyone else. In fact Ames and co in some cases just supplied plain A4 paper with 'water marketing' and 'strictly business' as the entire evidence of beneficial use.

As we now know some LOIs for Ames depots are from an Ames owned business that doesn't supply water to the oil industry, with Ames employees filling out application forms for apparent other water depot owners, with Ames as buyers. etc etc.

[che7win] 17/12/2014 20:28

Superg,
The Culbertson depot will only be able to sell to customers in their LOIs just as we would only be able to sell to the clients on our LOIs.

Isn't that correct?

As far as I can see, each truck doing business with us has a barcode to ensure we don't supply other customers and everything is strictly tracked.

[freshvoice] 17/12/2014 20:05

They are sad masochists usually under the influence when they post
OR paid derampers
OR paid to incite you and put up the pay per click revenue for ADVFN.
Why do you think they do not keep them under control, because they bring in revenue.

[superg1] 17/12/2014 18:57

Stevo

Filter the thread owner and the threads disappear, any posts are often full of false details as they know folk won't check it out. I stopped looking long ago so have no idea what is going on.

However just to show the lies I got this via email stated it was posted by one of the trolls.

The email was along the lines of, why would anyone buy from IOF when the Bainville depot is 30 to 40 miles closer to where it would be used.

They asked as I had said the IOF depot will be about 20 miles from the ND border.

As far as I'm aware the iof depot will be few miles east of Culbertson.

Culbertson IS listed as 23 miles from the ND border. Bainville is around 8 miles from the border with ND.

That puts about 12 miles between the two, but for some reason they seem to want to say the difference is 30 to 40 miles, a bit of juicy exaggeration it seems.

That's the way the general content of the posts go, loads of complete rubbish knowing folks don't check it out.

My advise is filter, and ignore and DYOR.

Bty the Bainville depot is one of the Ames lot.

Why would Hal buy from Ames, he has his contracts and doesn't have the capacity or ability to supply at levels Hal need.

If Hal were not committed to it, IOF wouldn't build one.

Goodness knows what other lies are in the posts, I have no interest or desire to take an interest.

No doubt they all read this thread, but why ??? they have their own.

[joeblogg2] 17/12/2014 17:18

super it was wishful thinking on my part but as you say hopefully Carlisle has scored an own goal in his objections and stand to lose some of his permits.

[captain_kurt] 17/12/2014 17:13

If it goes to a hearing, it won't delay any JV being signed, as the beneficial use objection is baseless

[superg1] 17/12/2014 17:07

Joe

That's the one thing we can't bet on as being valid is not the same as material.

Personally I've completely dismissed the wildlife one and the Culbertson town one. There is nothing factual or relevant in either of them in relation the objection criteria.

The wildlife one is 'what if'.

Simply explained If I want to drive without a seatbelt on, I would need an exemption certificate. If I didn't get one, and drove without a seat belt, and got caught doing so, I may be prosecuted. That doesn't mean the police can say I can't buy a car in case I do the above.

What the wildlife lot are saying is that IOF shouldn't be allowed to buy car, as they may drive it without a seatbelt on, but if they do drive without a seatbelt, they need an exemption certificate to not face prosecution if they were caught.

They have no intention of not wearing a seatbelt, so don't need exemption. Intending to flout the laws or not, it's got absolutely nothing to do with restriction on rights to buy a car.


That's making the wildlife law simple. They are saying the intake may take some fish that are protected, so if they thought they may take protected fish then they need an exemption certificate. If they took such fish, that would be an offence without an exemption certificate.

They are not after fish, they are after water and will stick a screen there to stop the ingress of fish and other debris. I don't know why the wildlife lot waste the ink and postage costs.

Even if IOF didn't want a screen, and thought 'I fancy some caviar' (protected species Pallid Sturgeon), it's still nothing to do with water laws when applying for a permit. The wildlife lot could simply prosecute them for taking the fish without an exemption.

The city of Culbertson one, well there is nothing to say there is nothing relevant in it.

Mr Carlisle hits beneficial use points albeit they are not true facts and I know that, it's up to him to prove they are facts. It's not the bureau's job to pick through evidence to support or disprove his facts. It is the applicant that proves their beneficial use.

Hence knowing it's all a complete pile of junk, I'm absolutely sure they will get their permit if any of his points are deemed valid. He can't have it both ways, either he put false details in his own permit, or false details for the objection. His own permit forecast use per well fits in with expert industry reports, so it is his objection figures which are false.

Then consider all the clearly false LOIs that he never contested in an objection re other permits.

He talks about the big margins, and there is another LOI for another depot saying existing depots are too expensive. As he was one of the first it was probably him.

The list goes on and on. He would be torn to pieces on the information he has provided so far. I'm confident I could do that myself if I was involved.

Until the deficiency letters are replied to, or the target dates expired, then we won't know what the valid points may be.

Take it to a hearing I say, there seems to be a great case to revoke some of the permits awarded, if that option is available when showing that LOIs were just plain made up, and various names used to deceive the bureau.

[stevo2011] 17/12/2014 16:41

Fest it is in the language used , I don't care to be honest , let's see what Q1 brings.

[festario] 17/12/2014 16:38

Sancler is not Macca.
His posts are generally positive, if tending toward the conservative.

A little caution might have served us all well over the past 18 months.

[mr paul b] 17/12/2014 16:38

A bit more volume today than usual , and fair few buys at the end of the day .managed a small top up at 29.5p..

[joeblogg2] 17/12/2014 16:23

would be nice if the objections are dismissed and we get permit awarded before EOY.

[superg1] 17/12/2014 16:00

Just for the record it's all available via the web if you know where to look.

[che7win] 17/12/2014 15:45

Oil price showing a bit of a strength last half hour...

[superg1] 17/12/2014 15:23

Except under your other names on the thread I filtered out many moons ago of course.

You are not N3 or ACT, of that I am absolutely sure.

[sancler] 17/12/2014 15:11

superg1: re 28088

You appear to have the advantage on me. You are able to say who is listed on the objection.

All I have seen with respect to the objection is the file ob1.pdf to which a link was posted. That does not state by whom the objection was made. It says "I" but it does not say who "I" is.

I assumed that the objector was James D Carlisle and that his age was 71. And then I saw a publicly available document apparently referring to the James D Carlisle connected with the Culbertson Water Depot with an age which didn't match. I wasn't looking for anything positive or negative. I was just checking things before seeking to answer alphacharlie's unanswered question.

Given your interest in trying to pick holes in this objection, I thought it something you might want to follow up.

Still, as I am so obviously an idiot and unwelcome here (even though I am not Macca) I will resist any further impulse to post.

[superg1] 17/12/2014 15:01

Just checked it's dropped just below 1 million so the fund manager post is probably the reason.

The winners list post said it all. No one other than macca would do that.

[stevo2011] 17/12/2014 15:00

AgreedI had a look on the FCA updated daily fund short tracker last night and IOF aren't on it.makes a change from last year with Ennismore which was at 2% at one point