Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 13/12/2014 20:41

Hey MELLY,

I liked the 16 ticks mate... I struggle to get a handful ;)

[superg1] 13/12/2014 19:37

One angle by that guy which contradicts his own application is the amount of water used to frack wells.

He suggests only 40k barrels are needed per well, thus the IOF permit covers 702 wells when only about 200 each year are drilled. He states there is no need for this permit as there are enough suppliers around to meet demand.

In the objection he quotes only 40k is needed per well, BUT in his own application to get his permit he uses a figure of 50k to 70k per well to justify his application.

He suggests the 50 mile radius is an exaggeration but it's the same service area he recorded in his own application.

Not only that for the other depots he mentions available, one of those has an LOI where the water buyer states he will truck it 300 miles and that LOI was accepted by the bureau. He said nothing about that and didn't object.

He states things suggesting the demand is pure speculation trying to get involved in the big margins to be made. That Halliburton clearly don't realise there are plenty of depots around and other associated junk.

He does add in a nice line about the produced water being high in salt so nearby leases are being left to lapse.

The whole of the Bakken has that problem and needs maintenance water for each well just like that.

So to cover those points he raises. His 50 to 70k figure in his own application is near right. 40k is just made up to try and cause trouble it is not a fact.

That recent report I posted details about shows an average of 60k to 80k barrels per well. The objector does not take into account the other water needed when drilling, but the main point is maintenance water, and for the industry that bit is the hidden huge quantity needed.

Typically due to the high salt he mentions they have to flush the wells out with fresh water each day. 600 gallons is mentioned which is just over 14 barrels.

In the a bakken report they quote that 600 gallons per day figure for a current near 12000 wells.

That is 5000 barrels per year for each well just on maintenance water.

So if he is saying 200 per year are being drilled then on his own figures in his application including maintenance water then 10.2 million barrels are needed, where his objection suggests 8 million are needed.

That figure jumps each year as if it's been 200 per year over the last 4 years then 800 wells need maintenance water at 5000,000 barrels per year..

You can add another 12,000,000 for the fracking making 22 million. Then add 1 million per year for every 200 wells drilled re maintenance water.

However the clear current shift for next year is slick water to enhance recoveries that then includes ranges as high as 250,000 barrels for one well frack.

Those are the facts from sources in the industry that have put out reports on the topic.

So you can see his 200 wells only need 40k per well is complete tosh and is way off the mark, it's clear what he is trying to do, it's just a lie as he quotes higher in his own application

In fact Bob Shaver forecast the use in the bakken would rise to 3 billion gallons per year, he missed by a good margin as he wouldn't have factored in maintenance water. They didn't know they needed it until the salt build up presented itself. If that report is right about 600 gallons per day per well to flush salt out then that is multiples of Bob's estimate of 3 billion.

Halliburton know the above, so do IOF. The guy hasn't got a chance on that point.

[superg1] 13/12/2014 18:11

I'm not really going to bother with two of those 'objections' as the points don't fit under laws and nothing amounts to facts or evidence, just speculation.

The only one that covers relevant points to permit objections is the Culbertson depot owner.

His concern is losing some sales and the devaluing of his business and other depots. That point is no basis at all to object to permit. The bureau are not about supporting the building of a monopoly, and preventing competition.

If that were the case a farmer wanting to grow wheat could face the same problem if any farmer could object because there is enough wheat about.

The law is simple. The water is there for the benefit of it's people. If it's physically and legally available, with adequate diversion and the use is beneficial, then they will issue the permit.

We have discussed the physical and legal availability, which it is at 100's of times the level IOF want to extract.

In the objection he admits that the water is legally available but is not needed.

'It is not needed' is a matter of opinion, not fact he would have to show why it's not needed and IOF would have to show why it is needed. IOF have already been through that point in a hearing.

So I will ignore physical and legal availability, that is all about flow rates and there is oodles of it left as recorded by the DNRC.

Adequate diversion has been dealt with too. Adverse effect is to do with the rights of others affected which due to the flow rates is a non starter.

Possessory interest should be ignored too that's just about the lease of land

The key once more which is open to speculation is beneficial use.

I will cover some of his comments in another post.

[superg1] 13/12/2014 12:51

Cyber

I have a lot of people contact me behind the scenes. All 3 objections have deficiencies, hence the 15 day rule will have kicked in plus 7 days re post marks.

My guess would be that letters went out after the 1st December, it was thanksgiving the week before in any case.

So for any timeline it would have to be more or less as stated before, the last few days of December of the first week of January before the objection process is fully complete to decide of any points are valid.

If they had been deemed valid then a date would have gone into the hearing box. It didn't and it was a matter discussed in detail.

There is one twist now though. The details are there for all to see, so perhaps IOF will release an rns .

The LSE guy posted his findings, and the above is spot on, as will be seen if IOF release an rns next week. If they don't then we won't know the outcome before xmas imo.

Knowing the water laws and details in the objections combined with all the other research in recent times, I'm very confident we will be getting our permit, be it at the end of December, early January, or in a hearing which would take place before the February, going by the rules.

Something could still be deemed valid. A valid objection isn't necessarily a valid point that stops a permit.

The only time the public can get their say is in that public notice period, they can not do a thing during the application process.

I suppose if the bureau issues a permit saying all is correct then a public notice period is pointless if they dismiss any objection.

Two of those objection letters are nothing to do with the criteria set out.

At least the Culbertson depot guy has raised points material to the water laws. But he has dug a hole he may wish he had never started. It's on paper now and they have got it. I'll list the various issues.

Objections must be based on significant evidence and fact. Some things he has recorded are wrong, thus they are not facts or evidence of facts.

He owns a water depot in Montana, how come I seem to know more about water demand and uses than he does. I don't believe he is ignorant he is just trying to deceive the bureau with a pile of made up rubbish.

Details later.

[superg1] 13/12/2014 12:33

Ridicule

From contacts with connections to the broker dealing with it.

In such circs there can always be a bit of smoke and mirrors but I have no reason to doubt the details.

Of course funds also get to see the share register monthly so they know where sells or buys are coming from to some extent.

With such a market on the oil side and the huge swings in prices, margin calls will have been firing off all over the market.

It seems amazing sometimes how an share price reacts to news with investors selling. It's rarely to do with voluntary sells on a sharp move, and all to do with stop losses and margin calls.

I have watched 50 to 100 shares for 4 years now and you get used to the same names on threads and what shares are in their portfolio. I see a dip somewhere and think 'If that's a margin call then shares X Y and Z will now see similar trades' and it's happens quite often. Share Y thread then questions who is selling...... a computer is the answer.

[cyberbub] 13/12/2014 10:56

Superg how do you know that 2 pf the 3 objections have received deficiency letters?

[muffster] 13/12/2014 09:36

He doesn't. All we do know is this share is likely to test new lows, just based on the chart pattern.
24p still my target

[ridicule] 13/12/2014 08:52

SuperG You have made a number of references to a forced seller on margin calls keeping the IOF share price low. How do you know this to be the case?

[superg1] 13/12/2014 08:17

MM3. Robo and co.

Shortly some pro plus will arrive through your letterboxes, your are going to need it if you want to get up to speed on the various points this weekend.

When such matters arise all the digging and poking around pays off.

First point before I bury my head into double checking facts.

All of those objections got deficiency letters. Deficiency letters mean all or some of the of the points are not valid.

The only objection that actually covers relevant points is the Culbertson depot one, so I'll concentrate on that one and in particular beneficial use.

It's interesting that the objector has out in details which are inaccurate and not facts.

When you then compare them to his own application then you realise it's not inaccurate, but lies and deliberate misrepresentation.

He will get torn to pieces if that ever goes to a hearing, and he is more or less destroying his own permit, which is exactly the thing he wants to protect.

"Officer that car was doing 110mph, I know because I had to do 120mph to get past him"

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 12/12/2014 23:27

I sense an overall lack of drive here. I know why too, it's the defensive measures because of lack of real investment funding.

You never funded properly when the sun shined.

Now you have someone who nobody trusts... this will be good.

[alphacharlie] 12/12/2014 20:23

Re my post 27821:

I was hoping to find photographs of the Culbertson Depot but I can’t. (But from memory they were not very impressive which was the reason for sharing them).
I have, however, found a 9 page pdf of an application to an existing permit. I don’t think this adds anything re IOF but it shows that Culbertson asked for an extension to complete a project.

It was received by DNRC WATER RESOURCES, GLASGOW UNIT OFFICE on 26 December 2013 and approved on 10 January 2014.

So quite fast. (I think this permit has been mentioned before).

The remarks at the end (looks to me as though they're a standard clause) are worth reading re NOT transporting outside of Montana

These are some extracts of the permit:

Culbertson Water Depot
PO Box 410
Culbertson, MT 59218

PROVISIONAL PERMIT/AUTHORIZATION NUMBER: 40S 30048631

APPROVED
The request for additional time to complete this project is approved because the appropriator has shown diligence in completing the project or shown good cause for not completing the project.

The notice of completion deadline is extended to December 31, 2016
PROGRESS REPORT DUE: NONE

Dated: Januarv 10. 2014


Remarks:
WATER APPROPRIATED UNDER THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE TRANSPORTED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE APPROPRIATOR SHALL INSTALL A DEPARTMENT APPROVED IN-LINE FLOW METER AT A POINT IN THE DELIVERY LINE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WATER MUST NOT BE DIVERTED UNTIL THE REQUIRED MEASURING DEVICE IS IN PLACE AND OPERATING. ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THË APPROPRIATOR SHALL KEEP A WRITTEN MONTHLY RECORD OF THE FLOW RATE AND VOLUME OF ALL WATER DIVERTED, INCLUDING THE PERIOD OF TIMÉ. RECORDS SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY NOVEMBER 30 OF EACH YEAR AND UPON REQUEST AT OTHER TIMES DURING THE YEAR. FAILURE TO SUBMIT REPORTS MAY BE CAUSE FOR REVOCATION OF A PERMIT OR CHANGE. THE RECORDS MUST BE SENT TO THE WATER RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE. THE APPROPRIATOR SHALL MAINTAIN THÉ MEASURING DEVICE SO IT ALWAYS OPERATES PROPERLY AND MEASURES FLOW RATE AND VOLUME ACCURATELY.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 12/12/2014 18:52

Texas tea $58 Graham, any view?

[uppompeii] 12/12/2014 17:54

All fair points chaps and I do feel the pain having been torn off a strip in the past a few times on other shares so my stance isnt a deramp at all, just lucky to have sold way back but still watching (and waiting) but not able to commit even at this price.

[woodpeckers] 12/12/2014 17:35

stevo, you beat me to it!

The company (and sp) had it's knuckles rapped long ago for mis-management. We all know it has turned the corner since then.

Have to agree with most here that the 'new' management stopped frequent feedback way too early. There was a lot of confidence to restore which they successfully started to do. Just bad judgement that IMO. The board know that things are going to plan and thought they had got the message across way before they had.

The more recent fall is, I believe, due to two things. The first being the 'oil link' and so definitely not justified.

The second is obviously the water issue which will, given time, I think be resolved in our favour, but as I said in a previous post, it seems ludicrous that an 'extra bow to our arrow' is actually causing a drag on the share price

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 12/12/2014 17:29

See it's not just about need bud, it's about desire and ambition. One senses this lot are struggling on all fronts atm.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 12/12/2014 17:28

Well, you say that mate... but if you had more firepower then I bet you could tackle this crisis better.

[stevo2011] 12/12/2014 17:24

Net there is no need for a funding and you know that

[beeezzz] 12/12/2014 17:20

AIM market same old same old....has had very bad year, very few gold nuggets this year. I think I'll wait until NY before dipping my toe in again.

[superg1] 12/12/2014 17:20

More sellers than buyers up, as said they was a large forced seller (margin)from the start of week 3 in November, they were still about last week.

As most have said the water situation has disrupted things when we already know iodine production has gone well with it on target to meet the year end guidance of 325 to 350 which would mean 1000mt plus for the quarter if all is ok.

As for 3 objections it's 2, as stated in previous posts if you look deeply enough one won't be accepted for a very basic reason.

The wildlife lot is their usual stance, they did the same to Culbertson and it was not valid. So there is only one to consider.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 12/12/2014 17:19

See, Graham lacks intuition. He correctly forecast the problems in Chile but totally ignored the obvious prospect of a cut-throat price war that you are ill equipped to fight without further funding.

It's really that simple.

[stevo2011] 12/12/2014 17:14

Up - it isn't just about the story, it's about the market dynamics , it's association with oil , commodity prices at a low eb, previous miss management , over exuberance on growth plans and time lines, institutions holding off and coming back in once the strategy is clear, margin calls , not understanding it's asset value , that's why it is where it is now in terms of share price value.That said the market will turn, supply will reduce , competitors will continue to struggle and eventually fold, the iodine price will have a bull run , the water business will be awarded IMHO , it may go to a hearing but none of the objections thus far merit due concern, institutions will come back , cash flow has improved, costs reduced, and will improve the bottom line. assets may come into play at a later date. I had an email exchange with lance today and they are as frustrated as any of us.