Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[chumbo] 18/2/2015 14:03

Thanks SG. Not shocked that you had the answer.....

[monts12] 18/2/2015 14:02

I'd rather it didn't run away with itself, keeps expectations in check...on solid news the share price will speak for itself!

[ridicule] 18/2/2015 13:52

I must say, I did not expect the IOF share price to be this weak just one day before the hearing.

[superg1] 18/2/2015 13:45

Re Mr Carlisle's permit and LOIs. He has 3 LOIs, one of which was produced as an exhibit by IOF.

Use Permit No. 40S 30048631, Preliminary Determination to Grant (2010) (“The Applicant states their primary customers will be oil companies and oil field service companies to be used in oil well development and formation fracturing.” (emphasis provided), also, Letter Agreement from Arrowhead Oil Field Services to Culbertson Water Depot, LLC “Arrowhead is a company that specializes in providing fresh water to oil and gas companies for use in the hydraulic fracturing stage of oil and has operations …”). (See Hearing Exhibit No. 9).

Mr Carlisle's LOIs have more wording and are explained in around 2/3rds of a page for each.

However the content is just who, how much in AF, where and for oil fields

That one uses the words..

'Water purchased, may be transferred to well sites'

Going back to his objection point.

A fifth misrepresentation is the fact that no indication has been given for the number of well sites in the service area to be drilled.

No one gives that information in any application I have seen, him included.

Much of what he says is either lies, intentionally misleading, or he's just plain old clueless. In some ways a Vexatious litigant just trying to disrupt things.

Or as Tom put it, a blip in the road which they expect to drive through.

[superg1] 18/2/2015 12:44

kaos3 18 Feb'15 - 12:38 - 29905 of 29907 0 0

Light trading at this share price level just before the good news is no good :(

Light trading tends to suggest there isn't much of a supply about. If there was action to be had further down then the MM's would take it there.

Could be a stale mate going on if there is a supply and maybe some action later.

It's not just before news either as far as I know, official news re water could be way off.

I think it was said 40 was support followed by 37p with both of those resistance on the way up along with 44p.

Through 44p and Zac was pointing at the 60's.

[freshvoice] 18/2/2015 12:40

OD
I thought C meant conditional , not cancelled?

[superg1] 18/2/2015 12:39

Chumbo

Glad you asked that one as I had a question behind the scenes covering the point of other permits being used in evidence.

No the HE won't drill down they simply work off what is reasonable under the laws and refer to other awarded applications as a guide in show cause hearings (hearings where the bureau refused the permit)

A comment by the HE from the IOF first hearing.

The letters of intent from the oil field service companies (which account for more than 50% of the requested volume) indicate that the water purchased will be for purposes such as hydro- fracturing, fresh water treatment of oil and gas wells, and fresh water for drilling fluids used in oil, gas and water well drilling. The letters of intent provided are not unlike any other letters of intent provided for water marketing which have previously been approved by the
Department.

Applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the beneficial use of Water Marketing is needed and that 3622 AF of diverted volume and 5 CFS of water requested is the amount needed to sustain the beneficial use.


The 4 permits used as exhibits were:

Statements. Application Nos. 40S-30063842, 40S-30048631, 40S-30063074, and 40S-30051644.

Two of them are Pease ranch and Culbertson water depot who provided excellent. The HE said IOFs were not unlike those.

I will find the details of the other two and show you exactly what those LOI's said. Based on the law as I read it, the other 2 should never have been awarded.

As a series of mickey mouse permits were awarded on the back of dodgy and inadequate LOIs, then it has put the bureau in a very difficult and uncomfortable position, as they set a precedent when they awarded those.

[kaos3] 18/2/2015 12:38

Light trading at this share price level just before the good news is no good :(

[squire007] 18/2/2015 12:21

Doubled my holding here, and thanks to the knowledge being posted.
TIA.

[chumbo] 18/2/2015 11:01

A question please. We need to demonstrate a legitimate requirement for water and have LOI's for such from HAL to more than cover the 80,000 BPD. Is it customary for a HE to drill down into the detail of the demand and seek substantiation of same eg: via similar LOI's from the oilies to HAL? If I were a HE I might do that.

[odvod] 18/2/2015 10:14

What does it mean that there are so many cancelled trades today (3 out of 7)? Confused MM?

[odvod] 18/2/2015 09:23

SG1 - agreed

odvod - 13 Feb 2015 - 07:16:40 - 29731 of 29901
Game theory:

* object the water permit, share price goes 60 to 30
* buy shares at 30
* let the hearing lapse
* sell shares at 60

[che7win] 18/2/2015 09:21

Superg,
Agreed, which is why the objection is a delaying tactic as much as anything else, and an entirely predictable move.

The only thing is, IOF are continuing with their plans regardless of the hearing.

[superg1] 18/2/2015 08:44

If Mr Carlisle had half a brain cell, he would have piled into IOF at 30p and not turned up at the hearing. He would make more that way than trying to battle against it.

[superg1] 18/2/2015 08:29

Che

Exactly

A real water depot costs millions. Many water depots that exist cost $150k to $200k. They are tin shed jobs. Ames being some of them.

[che7win] 18/2/2015 08:15

Libya oil info here if interested:

[che7win] 18/2/2015 08:09

Some of the deluded plums think a water service company when building a water depot looks on a one year view.

These water stations cost $10m to build, the owner has a 20-30 year outlook.

Oil prices keep going up in the US, now above $54, 30% rise in a month, whenever you see experts talking of $20 oil or petrol below £1, you know it's time to long.

Libya oil production now in tatters, political risk in the Middle East always a threat and was not priced in.

[odvod] 18/2/2015 08:06

Thank you SG1 for the above. It looks like a high prob win to me. But one never knows. Trading activity from Monday on might tell us.

[superg1] 18/2/2015 08:02

One bit I didn't mention that made me chuckle, there are other bits.

'Clearly the oil service companies signing these letters of intent are not knowledgeable of the amount of water available in the area and are signing letters of intent solely speculating about the availability of water for their own needs and the fact there is no binding act of intent on their part.'

lol

Mr Carlisle claims to have spare water yet his letters of intent which are required to be turned into contracts exceeded the water he has available.

I bet when the question comes up he'll say he hasn't got a copies to show them, as the dog ate them.

In other words his LOIs were speculative with no binding act of intent etc. With proof of it by lack of sales and contracts.

[superg1] 18/2/2015 07:56

By the way, comments around now about reworking wells in the Bakken going to boost water use, and a probable tactic with the oil price drop. Re-working was always on the way and will be repeated many times over the life of a well.

[superg1] 18/2/2015 07:53

Well that was about the entire case case

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 cannot be deemed valid. (As said the bureau don't check the 'facts')

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

So that's the points I mentioned.

Representation.

On the form Carlisle ticked no.

6. ARE YOU REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL? No

details section left blank.

Above signatures it says.

'Only an objector whose signature appears below will be allowed to participate in an administrative hearing'

The only one on it is James Carlisle.

So that's it Carlisle v IOF with his points as detailed in previous posts, which as shown are not facts and look like intentional misrepresentation just to delay things and get a hearing. He will get torn apart imo.

[woodpeckers] 18/2/2015 07:23

engelo, I'm sure sg will be able to confirm or not, but I think Carlisle will be there as he has no legal representative, it is him against our water expert!