Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[monkeymagic3] 11/11/2014 17:22

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

Warren Buffett

[festario] 11/11/2014 17:15

Yep, the 40p support level (or the the most recent one) has gone.
Thanks IOF.

[freshvoicem] 11/11/2014 15:33

If only this dog could do the same!

[superg1] 11/11/2014 10:10

Talk of cehap take overs, yet look how seriously wrong the market potentially got the value of CRND.

That will be a very busy share to watch.

[monkeymagic3] 10/11/2014 16:17

There is not just one type of JV structure, it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

You can agree to co-operate with another business in a limited and specific way. For example, one business with a new product might want to sell it through a larger company's distribution network. The two partners could agree a contract setting out the terms and conditions of how this would work. I call this a commercial JV and I use them a lot.

Another option is to set up a separate joint venture business, sometimes as a new company/legal entity, to handle a particular contract/business. This is quite flexible and the partners each own shares in the company and agree how it should be managed.

[che7win] 10/11/2014 16:06

Cyber,
There is no minimum number of shares required to be in public hands on AIM, so in theory it could be as high as my example.

I believe £3m must be raised for flotation and there must be published accounts, but a reverse takeover into a shell listing might get around that.

I agree though, this isn't likely for a few years after the water business would be established.

[wester1] 10/11/2014 15:57

Perfectly legit to have a wholly owned subsidiary company, for example.

[cyberbub] 10/11/2014 15:54

Che, I think the split would have to be more like 50-50 or 60-40 like a JV? I see the only difference between a JV and and IPO in principle being that the people holding the 'other 50%' would be IPO shareholders rather than a single major water user company.Personally I think an IPO is unlikely (at this stage anyway). It would take a while to organise and cost plenty in fees etc. A major water user is likely to want to move quickly to secure a JV project in my view. An IPO could happen later, and offer both IOF and the JV partner a useful bonus...NAI

[che7win] 10/11/2014 15:44

No reason why the water company couldn't be listed with IOF shareholders holding 90% for instance and 10% being raised as equity for expansion.

IOF is worth in a takeover scenario what someone is willing to pay for it. Management can do all they like to justify what they believe the valuation of IOF is, but ultimately it will be shareholders who decide if an offer is acceptable.

[cyberbub] 10/11/2014 15:44

Sorry yes I didn't mean 100%, obviously there would be a proportion of IPO purchasers.In effect though it's not that different to a JV? ie. give away a proportion of ownership in return for getting a nice risk-free income stream...

[captain_kurt] 10/11/2014 14:58

Hmmm listing water as a separate company would mean we could create funding for the venture with no dilution to existing IOF holders and hold shares in the new company with a ratio to IOF shares

[naphar] 10/11/2014 14:53

Cyber
I don't think you can list a company and maintain 100% ownership. When you list you do an IPO, meaning people can buy shares. You can't be a publicly listed company without shares traded on the market.

[monts12] 10/11/2014 13:58

Either way, absolutely NONE of the value of the water is being factored into the share price, it could be worth £1/share alone. Given the high likelihood of no objections, award of permit in early Dec accompanied by possible JV announcement should result in a significant uplift. all imo

[cyberbub] 10/11/2014 13:54

The water business may well be listed separately but would still be 100% owned by IOF surely? Or if sold to someone else pre-IPO would have to be done at a fair value based on earning, IOF couldn't sell it for a peppercorn or else they would be in hot water... pun intended LOL

[superg1] 10/11/2014 13:47

I suppose someone would love too, but then the AIM rules of fair valuation scupper that somewhat. It's one of the reasons IOF joined the AIM

Those include any contracts and leases, EG the Hal contract is for 200k bpd and the brine leases as we know so far cover 82000 acres in the core area and amount to many 1000's of mt of iodine yearly.

imo any interested fund will have seen the 'funding' part of the water permit rns and will wait for clarification either way (JV or go it alone).

[heartwell] 10/11/2014 13:35

Banks and his buddies will take this out on the cheap. Mark my words.
Listing the water business separately and multibagging at PIs expense

[rovi67] 10/11/2014 12:44

boy! do we need to rise.

[superg1] 10/11/2014 11:54

Just to clarify from the actual objection form.

'Statute requires that an objector provide facts that explain how or why one or more of the application criteria cannot be met. If facts are not supplied, the objection cannot be deemed valid.

This is the only relevant objection list (A is a permit application, B is a change)

COMPLETE INFORMATION FOR ONLY A) OR B), NOT BOTH, IF OBJECTING TO A PERMIT OR CHANGE

APPLICATION. ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET AND PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1. The application number, applicant name, and your name.
2. The corresponding numbers shown below to clearly indicate on which criteria you are objecting.
3. For each criterion on which you are objecting, provide facts explaining why you do not believe the criterion can be met.

A) Objection To Permit Application – For each box that is checked, provide facts explaining why one or more of
the criteria in § 85-2-311, MCA, cannot be met.
1. Physical Availability – Provide facts showing why water cannot be considered physically available.
2. Legal Availability – Provide facts showing why the water cannot be considered legally available.
3. Adverse Effect – Provide facts showing how this proposed use will adversely affect your water right.
4. Diversion Works – Provide facts showing why the construction of the project may not be adequate.
5. Beneficial Use – Provide facts showing why the use (purpose) or flow rate and volume may not be
considered beneficial.
6. Possessory Interest – Provide facts showing the applicant does not have possessory interest in the place of use.


As we know the water bureau signed some of those off (1-3) but contested points 4 and 5. Those concerns were rejected at the hearing. So when the water bureau couldn't provide sufficient evidence, and IOF proved they met the criteria the PDTG was issued.

An objector has to provide evidence for points that have already been shot down in a hearing.

It doesn't necessarily stop someone objecting, but they would be wasting their time and money, and are unlikely to change anything.

[1madmarky] 10/11/2014 11:32

Interesting article about oil prices

I may not have been too far from the truth about Saudi production
GLA

[superg1] 09/11/2014 22:58

Cyber

Just to clarify, any valid objection would need supporting evidence, so it's not a case of a nimby whinge.

So in that regard I don't see how any water rights holder could have a valid objection. No way can IOF extracting from the Missouri affect the ability a of a rights holder downstream to withdraw their allocation.

The public notice itself, as far as I can see, only went in one local paper. I believe they also send letters to potential affected rights holders.

[naphar] 09/11/2014 18:52

Don't normally worry about having that kind of transaction done in a time frame just to include in your business plan/budget in my experience. If it goes through you just "bolt on" some changes or create an updated version. It might drive FP&A directors mad, but deals and deal timing have to be right, a companies planning cycle is not normally in the priority list imo.

[monty panesar] 09/11/2014 16:32

As we know any old joe blogs can't appeal against it any more from what superg has dug up on the subject and tends to be associated with bore hole extraction rather than extracting out of a major river. It is conceivable that a water MOU could be signed from any time onwards.Knowing the way bigger companies work if the likes of HAL want to get involved they might want something in place before Y/E so they can submit it in their 2015 business plan/budget allowance.

[cyberbub] 09/11/2014 15:47

I suppose starting next week we are entering the 'danger window' for objections to the water permit to be received by the DNRC.But I still think it is rather unlikely that any valid objections will come in, given how much work has gone into the whole process by Iofina, and the excellent research from people on this board...3 weeks from tomorrow until the objections deadline... fingers crossed etc...GLA NAI