Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[roundup] 05/12/2014 13:21

Joe.If, as a result of this debate, you feel you can make a judgement as to the result of this/these objection(s), then I am happy for you. I have to admit that I will have to wait for the official determination.

[superg1] 05/12/2014 13:01

'Everything has been speculation'

Not necessarily, as will show in the fullness of time.

[joestalin] 05/12/2014 12:55

Surely the whole point of these boards is for informed debate so that folks can make a choice of whether to invest or not.. (Most of them anyway).

It does make me wonder why roundup is bothering reading them if he cannot se the point.

[monkeymagic3] 05/12/2014 12:48

Roundup - Everything has been speculation. Not sure this particular debate is any different.

[joeblogg2] 05/12/2014 12:46

The deabate and informationis great!! I don't know if some have sold due to the uncertainty of the water outcome but the water permit appears to hold a big impact on the share price We are first and foremost an iodine producer/supplier and have a chemical division which is utilising it to make money.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/12/2014 12:45

There is no benefit roundup. Mind you, it takes our minds off the falling share price.

[roundup] 05/12/2014 12:22

I fail to see the benefit of continual speculation as to what constitutes fact or non fact, or who makes the decision as to whether an objection is valid or not. At the end of the day it is only speculation, and until we officially hear the results of the determination we won't know if the objection is valid or not.

[superg1] 05/12/2014 12:21

Henry

You mentioned wildlife folk of some type as possible objectors.

It's important to remember that the authority that issues water permits is.....

The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.

They assess such matters themselves and in fact have legislation in place on the topic of wildife issues. BUT that concern is only listed in applications for over 4000 acre feet.

'The department may not issue a permit for an appropriation of 4,000 or more acre-feet of water a year and 5.5 or more cubic feet per second of water unless the applicant proves by clear and convincing evidence that:

The points are much the same but below are the 2 relevant additional points

(i) the existing demands on the state water supply, as well as projected demands, such as reservations of water for future beneficial purposes, including municipal water supplies, irrigation systems, and minimum streamflows for the protection of existing water rights and aquatic life;

vi) the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed use of water as determined by the department pursuant to Title 75, chapter 1, or Title 75, chapter 20.


IOF have applied for a permit under 4000 acre feet, They originally applied for 10,000 acre feet. That was a daft move as it moved them into the criteria required above.

The 4000 acre feet is obviously the trigger point where the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation consider other points to prove.

As IOF are under 4000 acre feet they are under no obligation to prove anything to an objector as the DNRC has a set process.

If they tried that with IOF then once again it's contrary to what has happened for every other permit awarded under 4000 acre feet.

There is no mention of wildlife concerns in criteria at all for under 4000 acre feet.

So if Mr Public or anyone else raised that valid or not, there is nowhere to go with it legally in a hearing, IOF don't have to prove anything in that regard. The onus is on the applicant to prove things at a hearing, but the point doesn't exist under the DNRC's own directions.

The objector it seems would have to prove the DNRC is wrong and their policies/laws should be changed.

[awolagain] 05/12/2014 12:11

Sancler

I must say on first read of your post I was not so sure what you alluded to was correct. Having my second and third read it now makes a lot of the decisions made on the first refusal make sense even if they did not make a conscious or unconscious effort to scupper the application. Rather they took a path on maybe one point which then lead then further down a road not planned.
If that path should be followed or someone involved in making the first call on that path reviews the objection, then we stand a good chance of going to a hearing again until that thought process is again broken. interesting ideas.

[hew] 05/12/2014 12:06

Sancler, an A* quality post. Thank you.

[superg1] 05/12/2014 12:05

Sancler nice post.

Re

'The degree of difference in the overall flavour, atmosphere, approach, whatever, of the DNRC’s decision to deny in this case and the DNRC’s decisions to grant in other cases is astonishing.'

Just to appraise you of the general comments post the PDTD. It seems it was thumbs up to grant all round until it got to the final signature of the lady listed in the hearing, we actually named her way back before it was ever known.

Her view was not shared by others in the dept I understand.

My view that it would be granted is that the criteria were met and they had awarded similar permits under the same criteria. It was therefore hard to understand how they could not grant the permit, as it would set a precedent contrary to water laws. That would put doubt on any current and future applications for anyone, and discrimination against IOF when compared to those already granted.

The flavour of the hearing examiner's comments were along those lines when he regularly refers to other permits awarded under the same circumstances and criteria.

Hence with the points raised I stated I would be embarrassed to come up with such poor excuses if I was representing the bureau.


The policy for what they deem valid is unknown. All I know is it has to be a legal point, with facts, and substantial evidence.

Seeing what the bureau came up with makes me believe the average Joe has no chance, in winning at a hearing.

What we don't know is whether petty and generally irrelevant issues still make an objection point valid, albeit heading for the waste bin at a hearing.

Logic seems to suggest they wouldn't entertain such rubbish, but unfortunately bureaucracy knows no logic, or common sense.

Reviewing the hearing, data, and information in it, along with water laws, it logically heavily supports IOF. Just the same as when I thought it would be awarded.

So I'm still thinking it will be awarded, it's just the unknown point of shortly (no valid objections) or post any mutual agreement, or last stop, a hearing before the end of February 15.

[che7win] 05/12/2014 12:05

ACT,
no, the company can buy the dilution of Arron's convertibles in the open market right now (up to 10%) if it so chooses - not that it would - but it illustrates a point:

It makes the current price seem ridiculous, especially if they receive $10-$15m cash upfront in a JV on water.

Not saying that would happen, just that the current price seems a steal to me - especially with the opportunity for growth going forward.

Weigh us up at cash flow positive with the likes of your TUNG and you can see where the values lies.

Superg - thanks for the other O&G players - immense opportunity for us.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/12/2014 11:38

"When is this effing share price going to start going up??"

If you were Banksy, and you had a load of 40p convertibles, wouldn't you rather have them rebased @30p? Or even 20p? Double-bubble?

We discuss a lot of things on here, but funnily enough not Banksy's 40p's.

[monkeymagic3] 05/12/2014 10:52

You could have omitted the "When"

[superg1] 05/12/2014 10:33

Here is the paragraph I have been working off.

'The determination of whether an objection is valid remains the same. There is nothing in rule or statute that distinguishes a difference in the objection process between an application that is preliminarily determined to be granted and an application that is preliminary determined to be granted following a preliminary determination to deny. Each stage of the process to issuance is a weighing of the evidence. New evidence can be brought forward during any decision stage. In a contested case proceeding where an objection has been received, the objector must provide facts as to how the criteria have not been met and then present evidence at the hearing.'

It's not clear, but as you can see the objection process is identical another hearing completed or not.

That's what I say could it be identical points deemed valid, and therefore a formality as the hearing examiner will won't change his mind on identical points.

'Each stage of the process to issuance is a weighing of the evidence.'

I'm hoping that sentence may indicate they won't accept an identical objection as valid.

'New evidence can be brought forward during any decision stage'

That seems to indicate that new evidence may be the requirement for valid objections, it's not clear though.

'the objector must provide facts as to how the criteria have not been met and then present evidence at the hearing'


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.

If an Administrative Hearing is held on the application you will be limited to only those criteria on which you specifically file an objection and to those objections that are deemed valid.

[cyberbub] 05/12/2014 10:22

I am expecting a statement from the company as soon as the DNRC have formally notified them of the nature of the objection(s), and they have had a chance to do an initial evaluation. I would hope that would be back end of next week, or if not then the week after. Before then, everything is speculation, albeit reasonably well-informed speculation!NAI

[superg1] 05/12/2014 10:18

Specific staff Fresh.

Gad

Perhaps they should have readers passes on ADVFN.

[gadolinium] 05/12/2014 10:06

Engelo,

The British Library at St Pancreas is one of the crown jewels of this nation both intellectually and architectually in my opinion. Unfortunately due to penny pinching they did not build it big enough so many journals are stored off-site and need to be ordered in advance. It cost a miserly £500 M if you compare that with the cost of the millennium dome £800 M built at a similar time you can get an idea of this countries priorities at the end of the last century. Hopefully this has changed.

I remember before the present building the scientific collections were spread between London University and the Aldwich building and the patent Office near Greys Inn which made any searching a nightmare. There were no readers passes then and one would get all sorts of strange people, including tramps coming in!

[freshvoice] 05/12/2014 10:04

Who decides what is valid?

Is it the dragon or someone else?

[superg1] 05/12/2014 10:02

Che both prices are right.

I was told around $500k for a mobile, but fully installed with services out in it's comes out around $800k.

On the fracking side, we have used Midstates data as it was available. They have 6 SWDs, others like Sandridge have 100's.

I believe IOF are linked up to...

Chesapeake
Midstates
Devon
Sandridge
Chapparal
possibly Continetal resources added due to their SCOOP interest further south.

It's about 3 million acres from memory around 40 times the size of what Midstates have.

[superg1] 05/12/2014 09:56

It's fear that causes all the problems and lack of understanding of what some read, or they simply don't read anything. I find that absurd for any investment, surely the basics must be to understand exactly what you are invested in?

I have been exchanging posts on the law points with Sancler as two heads are better than one. It's for a reason known to me, not general exchanges.

Currently the hearing date box is unchanged. TBH if any objection point was to be deemed valid I was anticipating the box being updated at the start of this week. That said as seen on here I struggle to find what can be deemed valid. But then if valid can be an identical complaint from a new source then valid could be just irritating nothing more.

They won't drag on for weeks deciding if points are valid or not. They can't as there are time limits for a hearing. If they deem points are not valid they give the objector 15 days to reply with extra detail if they wish. If they don't reply the permit is awarded.

First point is are any points valid, which is what we are waiting for.

You can't just say, 'they don't need that much water'. or 'the beneficial use isn't proven'. You have to list in great detail evidence and facts about why that is the case, then be prepared to present that evidence at a hearing yourself or through a lawyer.

It's that need that leads me personally to think that the permit will be awarded. The prior hearing shows what type of evidence is needed. The guys that have all the data for the entire Montana area for the last 100 years, failed at the hearing.

Sancler is a lawyer, he knows there can be left field stuff, as do I, so he lurks.

The criteria seem so finite on their meaning it's hard to work out what left field event could cause issues.

The one I came up with is that the letters of intent are false, I don't think they are for a minute, but it's that type of event that seems to be the only way to derail it.

Adverse effect seems to be the one criteria that has options. But then it seems you have to be a rights holder for that one. Then if you are, the flow data suggests no one can possibly affected with their right to extract water. In fact there is a proviso in the determination that IOF would stop extraction in times of drought etc if it affected senior rights downstream.

Such an event is highly unlikely on the Missouri.

[che7win] 05/12/2014 09:38

roundup,
I agree with you, fracking is hear to stay.

In fact, reading the Mid-States report, we should be getting plants out in the field, there is plenty of growth for us to 'live into'.

madchick - I was told by Gary in March that the mobile design was complete and that the price was around $800,000.
I had been told by him the previous December that the price for a mobile was around $500,000.

We then had Lance come onboard and the costs are being reduced for all plants going forward,
In fairness the company has had a lot on rolling out and tweaking 6 plants and it is to their advantage to have delayed further growth.

The company is in rude health now.

I can see the share is in a rut, but once it turns, it will rise quickly, the best time to buy is when the market is handing you value on a plate.
No use complaining about it, everyone has opportunities that they must take in life, these prices won't last forever.

The company has done a lot behind the scenes in the last 6 months, they have reduced costs and made efficiencies to set us on a path of growth.

What I'm interested to see is the growth strategy from here.
I'm not necessarily talking about plant growth - I would like to see the Chemical division expand as much as the plants right now.

[madchick] 05/12/2014 09:29

che - I'm with you on the mobile. Surely it wouldn't take much extra man power IF they already have the design and manufacturer lined up? They need to order it, a bit of extra time taken away from other things to install it. If it's near IO.2, then the staff there can oversee it, surely, without taking time away from optimisation of the other plants?

I can only think that maybe they still want to tweak the design of the mobiles based on what happens with their tweaks at the big plants, so although the design is in place, it's not necessarily the finalised design.