Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Greenbriar Sustainable Living Inc V.GRB

Alternate Symbol(s):  GEBRF

Greenbriar Sustainable Living Inc. is a developer of sustainable entry-level housing and renewable energy projects. The Company’s primary business is the acquisition, management, development, and possible sale of real estate and renewable energy projects. It operates through three segments: real estate development in the United States (Real Estate), solar energy projects in Puerto Rico (Solar Energy) and corporate headquarters located in Canada (Corporate). The Company is focused on building two large-scale projects, namely Sage Ranch in Tehachapi, California and Montalva in Guanica, Puerto Rico. Sage Ranch is a real estate community of over 995 entry-level homes in the Tehachapi Valley, a community located in southern California. Its Montalva property (1,747 acres) is a large utility-scale solar and battery storage building with an initial size of 80 MWac or 160 MWdc, located in the southwestern coastal area of Puerto Rico. Its Cordero Ranch property is located in Cedar City, Utah.


TSXV:GRB - Post by User

Comment by shnepson Feb 19, 2024 9:01am
85 Views
Post# 35887385

RE:Water Update

RE:Water Update" This occured and was completed and bought for millions of dollars years before their court filing,..."

The Water District's court filing was filed on September 16th 2021.

Jeff Ciachurski bought 38 AF Aug 13th 2020 - registered Sept 4th 2020   (22 days)

Jeff Ciachurski bought 76 AF Jan 14th 2021 - registered Jan 21st 2021   (8 days)
Paul Morris bought 76 AF Oct 14th 2021 - registered Oct 29th 2021         (15 days)
Ronnie Strasser bought 76 AF Feb 1st 2022 - registered Feb 24th 2022   (23 days)

Ronnie Strasser bought 39 AF July 13th 2022 - registered July 18th 2022 ( 5 days)

So in actuality, Ciachurski did indeed purchase 114AF (75AF pumpable) before the District registered its writ for the legal dispute. The remaining water purchases were after and as mentioned previously Jeff's letter to the City stated that he personally (as owner of the water rights and CEO) would provide 262.5AF (175AF pumpable). The water right purchases by Morris and Strasser were after the court filing and not made by Ciachurski. This may same somewhat petty but lawyers disect this type of information and it becomes very relevent.

-The 2020 RUWMP is not relevent to the administrative record.
- I'm not sure how negotiation settlement discussions are part of the administrative  record either.

Again, the is for the courts to intrepret and decide. All the information brought forward (after the administrative record) will likely show that there is possibly (and likely) enough water for the project to move forward. If the judge vacates the EIR and the WSA then the project is technically not approved and the process would have to start over again, IMHO.

Jeff apparently paid "well over $2M" for those 114AF = $17544/AF
That would expand to well $4.6M paid for 262.5AF by the three purchasers.
The City has been buying water rights for approx $7500/AF = $1.97M.
Why wouldn't they merely utilize the option of purchasing the water from the City and save shareholders millions?
That was one aspect I could never get a handle on. If the developer doesn't have sufficient water rights, the can just be purchased from the City once the amount of water rights the developer holds has been exhausted. That technically was 114AF.
I haven't seen anything in the Altus report related to these purchases but we weren't provided the full report details.

I look forward to the City's legal responses to the districts submission.

* I believe there is also a requirement to register the transfers within ten days after the original transfers were notarized. I don't know how relevent this timing actually is.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>