Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 06/1/2015 09:25

Some will have read the objection content as provided in links by the guy on LSE.

I will post it in parts, re the below, this is NOT relevant so just dismiss the below it won't feature (legally available/adverse effect).

My standing in this matter is predicated upon being a citizen of the State of Montana for 71 years and believing that this appropriation is excessive and does not reflect my right as a citizen to protect the waters within the State from the speculation of oil companies or other groups or individuals. Adequate evidence exists to show that while this water is presently available it is not needed and is currently available yearly several times over to the oil industry from some fifteen other holders of water marketing permits.

Secondly my standing in this matter is predicated upon being part owner of a water nght in the name of the Culbertson Water Depot, LLC. It is our belief that the issuance of this provisional water right to Atlantis Water Solutions adversely affects our water marketing permit. The issuance of a permit for said sum will adversely affect present holders of a Water Marketing permit for oil field usage by lowering our sales and subsequently reducing the value of our businesses.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 08:35

In short

I expect it to be Culbertson water depot, the 71 yr old, on his own in a hearing, no lawyer, and he can only raise the points in his objection deemed valid.

As already pointed out, he objects saying wells only need 40k barrels for his calculations, but he records 50k to 70k per well in his own application.

Many of his points won't form part of the objection.

I will break down his objection letter taking out the irrelevant parts, and explain why some parts will fall flat on their face.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 08:30

So that means we will be due an rns shortly. If the water bureau have already sent a letter to iof they may have it already.

So news this week or early next week re a water update and I anticipate they will include the Q4 production.

Can I just point out, that by following the admin process and protocols as recorded on the water bureau site, I have forecast more or less exactly what would happen re timings of when a date would appear in that hearing box.

If you check old posts the long time for the date to appear supports that at least some didn't reply to objection deficiency letters.

The wildlife one and Culbertson town were always going nowhere as there was nothing relevant to water laws objection criteria in their objections.

Legal availability and adverse effect was never going to feature (as posted) and I believe that won't feature.

The only relevant/valid point was the Culbertson depot guy raising beneficial use points. Although (as will be pointed out in detail) some of it is inaccurate, misrepresentation or plain old lies.

Also the hearing date before the end of February appeared as forecast (90 day rule)

It doesn't mean the hearing will be on that date, it's just a box they have to fill in. All parties will now meet to discuss the way forward and fix a date if needed.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 07:39

Test

Thanks, that would explain why Shroder's 2nd route to check it showed under 1 mill which is right.

[superg1] 06/1/2015 07:36

Thanks CK

Hopefully folks have read the posts relating to that.

It means the public notice and objection period is complete including the response time to deficiencies. Once that is complete they automatically update the heari9ng box as already done.

I won't bore you guys with the other bits but I'll add this from the original news on 22nd December

The Company’s Montana water permit (No. 40S 30066181) was under a public notice period through December 1st 2014. The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (“DNRC”) of the State of Montana has reviewed objections and determined, at this time, only a portion of one objection is valid. The other invalid objections points may be resubmitted to the DNRC during December for further consideration. The objection deemed valid may result in a contested case hearing before a DNRC Hearing Examiner whereby the objector must prove that the permit was preliminary granted in error. If necessary, the Company will vigorously defend the granting of the preliminary permit and feels that this objection has low risk to the Atlantis Water project, and therefore, the Company is continuing to move forward with this project.

I believe (with good reason) that the one portion is all that exists and fully expect the award of the permit.

[captain_kurt] 05/1/2015 23:16

Looks like superg was right.
DRNC status page updated. Hearing scheduled for 19th Feb 2015.

Bring it on Culbertson :-)

[testuser123] 05/1/2015 22:38

Hi schroder,

If you use the iof epic then it displays the data for an Australian ETF with the same ticker. That is why the link sg is using contains the sedol identifier (which is globally unique) instead. There has been no recent change in stock on loan.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/1/2015 22:23

Hey Graham,

What's the row between Joe & Neddo all about matey?

I lose track of it all.

Heard some op's in Bak are already $40 sale price mate.

Any views?

re: future brine supplies mate?

We still doing I?

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/1/2015 22:17

Happy New Year!

It's the last day of Christmas....

You okay Graham my main man?

[superg1] 05/1/2015 22:14

Shroder

I don't get your point the link is the IOF link that has been followed for some time. The graph follows lines when Ennismore were closing which could be seen on short tracker.

It's ridiculous to believe that someone went short on 5 million shares just before xmas, that is a massive volume for IOF and suicide at the price.

Just imagine a JV announcement on water and being stuck with the now (if right) 7 million shares to buy.

The original link followed did have the IOF symbol in it which it has disappeared. The graph has the same moves which had the IOF ticker in it, I know I have watched it for many months. I could even show you the increased amount when Cawkwell opened a short then closed at a loss, he has it in his diary.

Edit

His reason closing was recorded as a change of management who he recorded as being good,

[shroder] 05/1/2015 21:19

How can you say for certain it's 'obviously false' when the link you are using doesn't contain the company epic?

And, no it's not impossible, it could be a hedge off market. Having watched blinkx for the best part of a year I now fully appreciate what is possible.

_________________________


superg1 5 Jan'15 - 11:41 - 28388 of 28398 4 1

Shroder

Why bring our attention to something that is obviously false. Surely you are an experienced investor form your history and should have known that is an impossibility under the circs.

Are you short? I'm asking as you post a lot on Blinx and GBO I note.

[alfie4048] 05/1/2015 19:30

mms are exempt from reporting short positions to the FCA. See their website for details.

[neddo] 05/1/2015 16:58

thank you joe

[bocker01] 05/1/2015 14:37

If someone had gone 5% short then based on past experience this board would have been swamped with trolls and derampers over the last few days and the other board would look a lot perkier than it does. But not a peep!

[joestalin] 05/1/2015 13:39

Ah, Neddo, you are clearly a master of wit and repartee.

[neddo] 05/1/2015 13:25

unlike you joe who has nothing to throw

[cyberbub] 05/1/2015 12:25

I would be happy to see any information posted up here, Shroder, so keep it coming.But I would share a strong doubt that anyone (still in possession of their senses) would have taken a sudden 5% short position at these levels. The only way this would make sense is if they knew that the company was about to announce disastrous news. But this seems very highly unlikely given the RNS of 22nd Dec and our knowledge of the company's cash position. A company taking such a large position in advance of bad news could also expect very strong questioning by the FCA, IMO.NAI

[shroder] 05/1/2015 12:15

n/p superg1

btw, if you scroll up the GBO thread you will see I was the one writing to various brokers and fund managers asking if they loaned out stock.

All of the brokers I contacted didn't, it appears some institutions do although concise answers were not forthcoming.

[superg1] 05/1/2015 12:07

No not at all Shoroder but it's clearly an inaccurate record, there is absolutely no way someone went 5 mill shares short on one day just before xmas

The crest record seems to fit roughly what is shown as short on the link we use.

I have under it as 1 mill shares currently short.

I would be superb if 7 mill were now waiting to buy back having had no effect on the share price when 5 mill appeared.

Someone did explain about MMs taking stock on loan at times, but I can't recall the exact details

[shroder] 05/1/2015 11:57

That's plain silly superg1, I gave you my reason earlier which still stands.

The situation with GBO/BLNX is not too dissimilar, this is why we should be keeping an eye on these things.

I have checked the Crest database for SOL for Nov, the figure is below.

GB00B2QL5C79 IOFINA PLC ORD 1P 891,215 124,429,305 0.71

891,215 is the average across the month - it's less than appears on the chart but not by much.

The December data should be available shortly which may give a clearer picture. If you would rather I did't post the info please let me know.

[superg1] 05/1/2015 11:41

Shroder

Why bring our attention to something that is obviously false. Surely you are an experienced investor form your history and should have known that is an impossibility under the circs.

Are you short? I'm asking as you post a lot on Blinx and GBO I note.

[superg1] 05/1/2015 11:21

Shroder

I'd love that to be right, but if someone shorted 5 mill overnight the share price would have capitulated, and they person taking the position would be a whole load of trouble when the time came to close it.

The trading around the time doesn't support it, the share price had recovered and IOF had announced all on track.

[crazycoops] 05/1/2015 11:14

Currently, there are no short positions on IOF above the 0.5% disclosure threshold.