[Vision2020] Geeh melynda

[Phil Nisbet]

Wayne writes

"Only the dribble you wrote, was made part of the public record in the 
Naylor Farms water permit application, and was submitted by Naylor Farms to 
the IDWR attempting to demonstrate there was no connection between the water 
to be drawn from the Naylor Farms property and water drawn from Moscow 
wells."

As I previously stated, you have never read anything that I have written on 
the subject.

Wayne writes

"At the last IDWR hearing all the protestants/interveners' 
geologists/hydrologists demolished your claims.  Even the geologist hired by 
Naylor farms admitted that he was unable to verify or agree substantially 
with your claims."

What claims would those be Wayne?  Because I have read all the testimony and 
all the relevant documents and see no evidence that anything that I have 
actually written or given testimony to has ever been refuted.  As a matter 
of fact, Wayne, testing currently on going north of town is proving my 
point.  The real and very interesting question that did come out of those 
testimonies is how flawed the operational model is.


Wayne goes on

"Why don't you tell us exactly how many shares the Naylor Farms principals 
own in I-Minerals?  And what percentage of total I-Mineral stock that is?  
Let's see how honest you are."

Its public record Wayne, they own about 10% of the company.  10% of the 
company is not a control block Wayne and they do not have a seat on the 
board.  The company is controled (Over 50% of the shares fully diluted) by 
one very large shareholder, who does have a seat on the board.  He is not 
related to the Naylors and does not have any interest in their farm.

Then Wayne asserts

"As there being no connection between Naylor Farms, others will conclude 
quite differently from your no-connection-assertion once they see the 
figures about holdings requested above, which you can easily present."

Well Wayne, the Naylor family owning a 10% stake in a firm seems pretty 
straight forward as a sign that they do not control the company i minerals 
inc.  They have no seat on its board of directors and not one of the 
officers or employees of i minerals inc has any financial or family tie to 
Naylor Farms.

Wayne then writes

"John Bush and two other geologists wrote a scathing letter to the IDWR 
about how you misused their data.  [For those interested, I can supply a 
copy of this document -- a large PDF file.]  Comments were also made by 
other geologists about the uselessness of your core samples because of the 
methods and lack of proper/standard documentation/labeling."

Wayne, I seriously doubt that you have any statements that the core was 
mislabeled.  All core blocks are in their proper places.  The trouble is 
that no other geologist has ever bothered to drop by, largely due to the 
controversy you provided, and actually look at the core.  The quick logs 
were properly done for what the hole was, a geological and not a water hole.

You confuse the issue, Wayne, since the objections you reference were that 
water well drilling forms that your hydrologists are used to were not used.  
That should amaze nobody, since the holes were geological core holes and 
never meant to be water wells.

John had previously mapped the area in question as granite.  Its not.  If 
you look at John's revised maps and his plots, the data I developed is 
clearly shown.  Prior to the holes being drilled and the information being 
logged, sections for the area showed granite below a thin veneer of Palouse 
Formation.  Now we know that Sediment of Bovill, Wanapum Basalt and Vantage 
member of the Latah Formation all occur in a 470 foot thick package below 
section 29.  Since holes drilled south of Naylor Farms at the Junction of 
Foothills Road and Highway 95 hit Granite at a depth of 190-200 feet, that 
is pretty clearly a geological barrier to water flow between Moscow and the 
Northern area.  If you had bothered to look at even Your expert Dr Elliots 
testimony, you would have seen that I am not the only person who noted the 
presence of a buried ridge.

As for the letter John put forward, you might consider what he was replying 
to and if anything he was replying to had anything to do with me.  The 
concept of an E-W ridge below D Street is not mine and I find the idea of 
its presence doubtful.  However, there is a channel similar to the Moscow 
Channel which shows up in well logs and outcrops north of the Moscow and 
which is paralell to the Moscow Channel.  Those rwo channels are seperated 
by a well documented ridge line.  It has no effect on movement of water 
within the Sediment of Bovill and its four established water bearing 
horizons, but does impact what happens within the upper and lower Vantage 
member sands.

They Wayne writes

"The purpose of Kevin's affidavit was to rebut your claims.  [For those 
interested, I can supply a copy of Kevin's first affidavit.  It is a very 
large Word document.]  He even indirectly suggested in it that you could not 
tell a geological formation from a rock dump."

If you would like Wayne I will see if Kevin wants to put forward a letter 
stating anything like that.  I seriously doubt that he will.

And of course there is this set of Wayne's world

"Kevin's version of the telephone conversation is the opposite and made 
under oath.  Naylor Farms' attorney had notice of Kevin's testimony of this 
before the last IDWR hearing.  Is it not clear why you were not called by 
the Naylor Farms attorney in this hearing to rebut this claim?"

Once again, I have not changed my opinion on anything that I have actually 
written or that I gave as testemony under oath.  Kevin knows that and you 
might be better off actually talking to him.

Finally this from Wayne

"Sue away.  I cannot help if the Latah County Prosecutor failed to make a 
complete investigation before he acted.  But sue.  But look up the law on 
public figures so that you do not unintentionally make your attorneys much 
richer.  But if you sue, expect a rigorous counteraction and a very 
searching discovery process.  I will not make the same mistake the 
prosecutor did"

The Prosecutor did not have a case not for lack of investigation Wayne, but 
because there was no wrong doing.  The Idaho Board of Professional 
Geologists stated that pretty clearly in their March letter.  Further, the 
Nez Perce County Prosecutor found no criminal act had taken place.

On the otherhand Wayne, John Bush is not a licenced Geologist, nor are any 
of the three geologists you mentioned having written a 'scathing' letter.  
As a matter of fact Wayne, not one person currently employed by the Idaho 
Geological Survey is a licenced geologist.  90% of the professors at the U 
of I are also not licenced.  Of the hundred or so geologists in the area 
there are only 6 with licences.  Heck, even CE Brockway, the high priced 
Hydrologist hired by the county who gave testimony at the last hearing is 
not a licenced geologist, though it is patently not legal for the county or 
any other state agency to contract any person to do geology or hydrology who 
is not a holder of that licence.

I am actually one of the only people without a licence who works and is 
exempt.

You and a few buddies of yours went on a rampage which, had you looked at 
it, could have put some of the very people on whom you have relied into deep 
hot water.


Phil Nisbet

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/