Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[rogerbridge] 12/1/2015 08:51

Aldi have buy a half and get two and a half free.

[superg1] 12/1/2015 08:44

Hurricane

Tesco now have them on a buy one get two free offer.

They have an identical offer re accountants if anyone wants some.

[superg1] 11/1/2015 20:39

It's a funny old game, quite by accident while just looking for something else, I spotted this paragraph from a report this year.

'There is no overarching policy regulating how the industry uses water. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a provision known as the “Halliburton loophole” exempts oil and gas operations from almost all federal air and water regulations, leaving protection of these basic life necessities to the states.'

So perhaps the reason they don't bother as the bureaus would be very strict and drag it out to the limits trying to block them.

[hurricane.] 11/1/2015 20:39

What price for Atlantis with the water permit, discharge permit and USFW swap right ?

[superg1] 11/1/2015 20:31

Any US citizen can apply for a permit, all they need is a relevant genuine beneficial use.

That's why I say if they deny IOF a permit that would set a precedent meaning all permits before shouldn't have been awarded, with no future like permits awarded either.

As I said before in theory IOF could do an LOI to Atlantis water solution. It seems there was no need for Ames to use all the different names.

Wildcat trucking have a permit and they got it on the back of a buyer/LOI called Wild cat trucking.

A few did like Slawson exploration and others, but considering the amount of companies around very few have done it.

First point is to locate some land, then all the rights of way with all land owners for the route of the pipeline, and so on.

It's not easy to achieve and takes quite some time.

[naphar] 11/1/2015 20:20

Bogg1e
Thats the reason i thought Hali couldn't do it themselves. What stops someone setting up a water company is beyond me though.

[bogg1e] 11/1/2015 19:10

SG Isnt there a law which states that only water companies can apply for water permits?

[superg1] 11/1/2015 18:43

Fresh

I believe It's all about being behind the curve, or just plain the fact that they can't just expand into every business sector.

A clear reason is they thought recycling would be the big thing and they went on that route only to find it's too expensive too become a trend. There is a report somewhere about that mistake.

Permits take a long time to build up to the actual application, then all the time post application.

A bit like a bio company really, let them do all the work and if the drug works buy them out.

The interest in IOF is probably enhanced by the discharge permit and USFW rights swap as it's unique.

Oil may be low priced now but there is 40 years plus to go in the Bakken area.

I note some Opec countries are now trying to pressure Saudi into action. Opec may have said no change but that is not the view of all countries connected to it.

Saudi is an easy target as US production comes from a 100 or more companies.

[freshvoicem] 11/1/2015 16:35

Just a thought, why didn't Halliburton apply themselves for water.
What USP do Iofina have that means its worth them applying and not Halliburton?

[superg1] 11/1/2015 13:25

Another 'depot'

Very kindly they list the details. 12 hours open with a max capacity to do 9 trucks per hour 3 filling concurrently.

A claim of 108 x 120 barrel trucks per day.

4 x 400 barrel tanks and 5 x 500 barrel tanks meaning 4100 barrels stored on site.

4100 / 120 barrels per truck = 34 trucks of water on site (4 hours worth)

570 gallons per minute well pump. 9771 barrels over the 12 hour period = 81 truckloads. The refill rate is 27 trucks over 4 hours, so 54 over the 8 hours plus the stored water of 34 trucks. That means an 88 truck 12 hour capacity but perhaps they have calculated the 9 trucks per hour taking all of that into account.

So the 108 trucks they mention, possibly park by the tanks with a gravity fed system once more.


4 to 8 days of filling up to frack one 50k to 100k well. 2 to 3 weeks to get enough for one slick water frack.

Another dud depot. LOIs from themselves ?? and Parka Inc.

[superg1] 11/1/2015 12:26

In conversation from the past (AGMs and otherwise) it was said many 'depots' are not fit for purpose to supply the industry.

In the objection Carlisle lists various depots saying the IOF one is not needed.

One he lists is no. 42M 30066151 Main st LLC

A permit for 367 acre feet. The only LOI is from Parka Inc (Tim Partin) for 350 AF.

The 'depot' had 4 x 400 barrel water tanks. 4 trucks can therefore fill at the same time. There are no pumps, so if the tanker hasn't got a pump it's gravity fed which is slow.

With pumps 15 mins per truck is normal to pull up, link up, fill up and leave.

So each tank can do 3 x 120 barrel trucks. So 12 trucks in 45 mins would empty the tanks.

There lies the problem, as that permit extracts from wells at 275 gallons per minute. The tanks all fill at the same time.

So now 12 trucks full and it will take 4 hours before the tanks are full again.

In fact for all tanks to have just one truck full of water in them ready to supply again it would take about 75 minutes, then add on the 15 mins to fill up (if the lorry has a pump).

So with that depot working flat out it's one truck filled at each tank every 90 minutes, assuming every truck has a pump.

24/7 nose to tail and in one day 64 trucks could fill up.

That would mean for one well it would take 1 to 2 weeks to get enough water (50k to 100k barrels).

For a slick water frack of one well it would be over a month.

So that 'depot' is completely useless.

Here's the twist that depot LOI is from Parka inc (Tim Partin) for 350 AF.

The IOF LOI from Big Horn (Tim Partin) is 300 AF. It seems Tim has found the depot to be useless (which it is).

[superg1] 11/1/2015 11:59

I recall some debate here re the LOI for Big horn leasing ion the IOF permit.

Tim Partin is the named person on it.

Having been through other permits I note LOIs include Tim Partin but under Parka inc which appear with a few permits. So it seems Big horn is just a branch of other businesses he has in the sector

[superg1] 11/1/2015 10:50

A great example of an existing permit with juts one LOI and a ridiculous service area that was accepted by the bureau.

Carlisle claims IOFs 50 mile service area is exaggerated and not reasonable. IOF cover 5 counties. He covers those 5 plus 3 more.

For those interested it is worth looking at this link and the following pages.



Hover the pointer on water rights then click on 'search for a water right'

In WR number put 42M 30062767 click search, then in a right hand column under doc image click 'view'. Then click on the 'view this document' for the one with 277 pages.

Page 81 is the only relevant LOI that secures the permit from that old chestnut Wildcat trucking, who I for now have renamed 'rent an LOI' (with good reason)..

Page 214 is a deficiency explanation re that letter.


Page 229

Wildcat trucking stating they have hauled water 150 miles in the past and for the applicant they will haul it 300 miles. ?????????.

IOF's declared service area is a 50 mile radius.

Then from page 231 to 233 the bureau staff exchange emails re the validity of the size of the service area. You have to read it from page 233 to 231 to get the right order.

To save some the trouble the comms say this between 2 members of staff.

'Have you checked with the legal dept or heard anything back re the service area'

'where can I find the regulations the list the requirement for a service area, the applicant is going to send some letters in' (300 mile letter)

reply

'There are not any regulations that cover a service area, it would fall under the qualification of 'reasonable and believable information' provided by the applicant.'

The bureau accepted that poor LOI and 300 mile service area letter. They awarded the permit.

What a great exhibit that would be for any hearing, I will be sending details off.

Evidence in prior awarded permits can be used to support your own, which is exactly what IOF did in the first hearing to support theirs.

I'll post re how the above is relevant re what Carlisle objects about.

[loughton] 10/1/2015 23:20

+1

You efforts are appreciated SG. Please don't stop posting

[old giggleswickian] 10/1/2015 22:11

superg1,
You get 10 out of 10 for effort on that last post. I did look at the Montana Bureau of Water website and the Atlantis application but soon got bored after getting the outline details!

Ian.

[superg1] 10/1/2015 21:51

If you find reading these posts boring then imagine my 'fun' going through 18 awarded permits most of which are 200 plus or 300 plus pages long.

Within the pile of boring pages I found a case where an objection was deemed valid (an Ames permit, 361 pages long).

That was the usual wildlife lot.

22nd Nov of the year and letter sent to Ames saying there was one valid objection.

On the 16th December the wildlife lot withdrew the objection having sent in a 60 page report ???.

On the 20th Dec the hearing examiner dismissed the objection and future hearing.

So whoever asked, there is an example. Letter received of withdrawal and 4 days later the permit was awarded by the examiner.

The pre-hearing conference was to be held on the 21st December for that case.

[superg1] 10/1/2015 11:04

ITM has kicked on since I mentioned it.

FUM mentioned too re an overhang which is known to be definitely in play. Recent high volumes suggest the end may be very near or done re the overhang.

Certainly yesterday seemed to indicate that.

[superg1] 10/1/2015 10:28

I don't think any site is that low bog 100ppm would be about the lowest like at io1.

io2 is the clear leader, io4 got it's booster pump for higher bpd.

IO6 was the one catching my eye due to the comment about good rates of bpd and high quality brine.

It was disrupted by this

'unanticipated design changes at IO#5 and IO#6,'

Those changes by the old team, meant when the brine went to high bpd rates the yield dropped. That news was in August and they were to fix it in the following months. Those are the matters they want sorted before they moved on.

'Delays in IO#6 start-up were due to Operator design changes at the tie in. The Company expects good water quality and quantity at IO#6 and therefore favorable production volumes.'

'we are excited about the production potential from IO#6.'


If you go through the production news most disruption is from fracking reducing volumes and production, yet folks worry about reduced fracking.

If fracking stopped at any point there would be a big surge in IOF iodine production.

"looking forward to the fracking schedule becoming less of a factor as the summer months come to a close."

I used to get frustrated at the market not understanding various shares, but if they understand did then there wouldn't be any bargains about.

Equally where hype shares look destined for certain failure. No worries just play the trend and take a profit.

[bogg1e] 09/1/2015 23:26

Cheers SG, I thought that was the "low fruit" Tom was taking about ($350k per plant upgrade). So that only applies to IO 5 and 6? makes sense cos 1, 3 and 4 are low yielding sites anyway. They cant squeeze much more out of 60 ppm i guess. Still, id rather see $850k spent on a mobile which in tun is placed on a 500 ppm site than $700k to improve 2 plants.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 23:24

One thing I love about IOF is that I have some tangible facts and figures to work with. There is no other share I know of that has such basic details available.

X + Y = Z here. For many I haven't a clue what X or Y are so can't work out Z.

For some I'm not sure X and Y exist so there will never be a Zed.

Try and work out the market for some of the favoured shares, and it's a complete fog, with very little chance of the mist lifting for them.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 23:17

Less than that Bog io5 and 6, All to do with some G and G adjustments that had to be corrected, caused yield drops on higher bpd/

Perhaps they have been sorted/

[freshvoicem] 09/1/2015 22:36

Where does the $350k come from bogg1e?

[bogg1e] 09/1/2015 20:41

superg, are these further operational improvements the ones that cost $350k per plant? Id rather see mobiles.

[superg1] 09/1/2015 18:49

In the last update who missed this line at the end of the rns

22nd Dec

"I am pleased to report another productive month at Iofina, particularly with regards to iodine production, plant improvements and the Japanese patent.


Ignoring the patent, iodine production obviously went very well and plant improvements have been made.

A month earlier

"I am pleased that we continue to improve operations at our current Iosorb(R) facilities and we still believe we can make further operational improvements to our plants.