Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[heartwell] 09/1/2015 15:16

Another red day. Delayed production results?
I wonder if they missed production again. It's not looking good folks.
Make way for the 20s

[bobbyshilling] 09/1/2015 14:21

Thanks for the reply SG.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 14:16

Ridicule

I'm sure such contact goes on. Perhaps like the nomad saying some idiot is saying the objections have been rejected leaving just the one point outstanding on one.

But then they will find it it's spot on.

Some say water news is not relevant and of no interest asking why we keep going on about it?. So no harm in mentioning what is going on then. :-)

If Carlisle withdraws, is that of interest? I suspect so, some may disagree.

If it looked like the permit wasn't going ahead, I can assure you certain posters would make it out to be the most important news this century.

That's the way they work. No relevance if it's not going their way, and company destroying if it does go the way they want it.

A paint chip on the car a write off, but a cooling tower dropping onto the car, just a scratch. Depending on what spurious rubbish they want to spread.

It's time for all posters and readers to get used to it and ignore it, if they wish. The same things has been going on for years, and will continue.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 14:04

Re production

A week before year end they said they were on track to hit 325 to 350 mt production.

They had done 216 mt up to Q4, so it should be between 109 and 134 mt for the quarter 36 to 44mt per month.

Given that some mention the cold affects yields and it has been cold, if they report the above, it's been a very good few months compared to earlier in the year.

Just ignore heart, he's probably not a buyer or seller just a troll and a usual one under one of the many ID's. It's just fun to them nothing more.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 13:59

Ridicule they have already released news showing heart is making it up, ADVFN seem to support and condone lies on their threads. Hence they don't get a subscription from me anymore for that very reason.

It has far less impact when you are not a paying customer. Quite a number have done the same.

bobby re your question


If it is concluded at the meeting that that the objector will lose, has the hearing examiner, if present, got the power to prevent a hearing at that point and award the permit?

Straight from the flow chart, the first is to do with agreed conditions, that won't be in play imo

16. Applicant / objectors withdraws the objection as part of a stipulation with conditions-Order Issued to Grant • HE dismisses hearing and issues Final Order to grant w/ or wo/ stipulated conditions as needed to satisfy the criteria within 30 days of stipulation receipt (standard template) May include private agreement condition.
• Dept will only review the portions of the stipulation that relate to the criteria



17. Objection withdrawn-Order Issued to Grant

• HE issue Final Order granting application within 30 days of receipt of withdrawal (standard template)

[rhwillcoll] 09/1/2015 13:54

Nice buy action on L2 in last 20 minutes .....

[cyberbub] 09/1/2015 13:46

*Please* everyone, just put the obsessive losers on filter. Really - it works. I don't have time to waste reading your responses to them. Remember, you can *never* 'win' against them - because their only aim is to get people to reply, and boost their own sense of self-worth.Meanwhile it looks like we might be turning the corner here... slowly...

[ridicule] 09/1/2015 13:24

uppompeii The BoD are doing their damnedest to make IOF a success, including salary sacrifice during 2014. Heartwell is trying to destroy value on apparently completely unfounded comments.

Growing this type of business is extremely demanding with many risks outside the control of the BoD: weather, Brine availability, new design concepts, destructive ADVFN posters etc.

[heartwell] 09/1/2015 13:17

Unfortunately uppompeii you can't argue with stupid lol

[uppompeii] 09/1/2015 12:54

ridicule, the board should take themselves to court then for misleading statements...I'm sure there were meant to be a lot more plants and mobiles by now...I think they've done a good enough job of damaging the value of IOF themselves.

[neddo] 09/1/2015 12:03

riodicule,

send his silly utterances off to iof,

[bobbyshilling] 09/1/2015 11:50

From your post SG:-

'On that point, before any hearing a meeting is held between the applicant and objector. The hearing examiner attends as will the lawyer I suspect.

So it seems crazy to me that Carlisle would go to a hearing as at that point he will realise he will lose and may shoot himself in the foot re his own permit'.



If it is concluded at the meeting that that the objector will lose, has the hearing examiner, if present, got the power to prevent a hearing at that point and award the permit?

(Thanks for your posts and work put in SG).

[woodpeckers] 09/1/2015 11:27

I'm guessing Carlisle is simply but mistakenly hoping that his objection may at least delay IOF's plans to get started.

[1madmarky] 09/1/2015 11:08

Yeah saw the tanker article as well. I am sure that happened a few years back as well when the oil price was tanking. Be interesting to see if this play pays out the same as last time.

[the fat controller] 09/1/2015 10:58

If Carlisle does read this board, and has any brains at all, he would be buying Iofina stock like crazy, and then withdrawing his objection. This would insulate him against the margin squeeze his water business is bound to feel.
Suspect not though!
TFC

[ridicule] 09/1/2015 10:32

Heartwell You need to be very careful. Your post 28545 is making affirmative statements that are likely to damage the value of IOF. There have been court actions against ADVFN posters who post malicious and false information to the detriment of a public company. How do you know the washing machines are not working? If this proves to be incorrect, you are liable. I am considering sending your post 284545 and this response to IOF and asking their opinion as a shareholder of this company.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 09:30

Che

I doubt a 71 yr Montana farmer takes the slightest interest in the internet.

He can have all the heads up he likes, once the objection period is closed, the only thing he can use is what is on his objection form.

Most of it is null and void as it relates to legal availability and adverse effect, both points of which have been deemed not valid.

Hence my posts on the one point deemed valid. If he read the posts he'd probably throw the towel in.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This will be the only opportunity for you to provide additional facts to the Department, If the information is not postmarked and submitted to the Department within 15 davs of the date of this letter, the obJection will be limited to the criteria marked "Yes" above.

No reply came and he is limited to what is considered valid on his objection form which we can all view.

The chance to reply also includes anyone attending.

Only persons named on the form can be involved in the hearing, he is the only one on it, he is on his own.

The fact he didn't reply makes me think he has given up.

He knew one point was deemed valid and that a hearing could be on the way at his hand, but he chose not to reply. He had the option to add representation by a lawyer, but didn't.

He will either give up or lose badly.

As it stands it could be concluded within a week, or if the hearing date stands, within 6 weeks.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 08:33

There is more conflicting detail in the objection to cover, but I don't think you guys need to read that boring stuff.

I se SQM are back under fire re a pending prosecution over the lithium tender corruption event. SQM lost the tender win after it was discovered fixing of the win (Mining minister resigned)

I wonder of that is why CORFO, the government office contesting current lithium leases held by SQM are determined to nullify the agreement through the courts.
These are the original long standing leases and account for 38% of SQM revenue.

[che7win] 09/1/2015 08:30

superg,
good work. I wonder if anything you have posted could be beneficial to Carlisle as a heads up.

Surely he reads this board.

[ridicule] 09/1/2015 08:30

Many thanks Superg. What would we do without you.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 08:24

Yes I have had comms and I believe it will be of interest to their lawyer.

On that point, before any hearing a meeting is held between the applicant and objector. The hearing examiner attends as will the lawyer I suspect.

They discuss a potential hearing date and also

'any other preliminary or procedural matters regarding this case.'

So it seems crazy to me that Carlisle would go to a hearing as at that point he will realise he will lose and may shoot himself in the foot re his own permit.

So as before, it could go to a hearing but there is a meeting beforehand at which point Carlisle may fold.

The pencilled in date is next Weds. I have let IOF know about that date in case the letter hasn't arrived yet via Montana snail mail.