Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[alphacharlie] 19/2/2015 12:41

gandolinium - British Bulls is essentially a traders platform and can frequently produce 3 or 4 signals per month. Interesting to look at but you would have to have bottle to follow their every 'trade tip'. Many would leave you out of pocket with trading costs etc. or only produce a small uplift.

The signals tend to whiplash a lot but their overall record for IOF is much better than mine.

[loughton] 19/2/2015 12:38

That's because they don't like it up 'em Gad....

[tim3416] 19/2/2015 12:38

Important to remember that this permit has already been preliminarily awarded by the bureau after their concerns were addressed by IOF. This NIMBY would have had to come up with a seriously good argument for their decision to be overturned. Thanks to Sgs research it's quite clear Carlisle is clutching at straws for whatever reason. As ridicule says the full award of this permit will be a watershed moment for IOF and I don't think we'll have to wait long to find out the outcome.

[gadolinium] 19/2/2015 12:36

I am very disappointed at the level of humour on this board, I fully expected my post 29957 to be followed by

'don't panic, don't panic'

P.s. especially for you Super, British Bulls has FUM as a buy today, Ha Ha Ha

[superg1] 19/2/2015 12:11

Od

I don't think one has ever been refused for industrial use in similar circs.

There are many twists and turns for minor stock and irrigation permits where creeks dry out, but that tends to focus on adverse affect for senior rights.

Adverse effect and senior rights were never in play here as stated many times, that was proven by all points in 3 objections related to that were not valid.
There is one about a floating football on a pond blocking an outlet for a n others rights somewhere, deemed to be malicious by the complainant.

I think the IOF lawyer dealt with that one and was showed the bureau to be malicious, or something like that.

The over-riding point is US water laws where the water is there for the use of the citizens. So the balance is always in favour of an award if the applicant meets the criteria, which IOF have.

[neddo] 19/2/2015 11:57

The never ending story?

[gadolinium] 19/2/2015 10:45

I notice British Bulls has this as a sell!

'Were aalll dooomed, dooomed a tell ye'

With apols to John Laurie aka private Frazer.

LOL

[odvod] 19/2/2015 10:25

If the JV partner is professional only a letter of intent can be signed first. Serious partner needs rock solid fundamentals. But the way forward (strategic review) should be published asap. Whatever the decision. If not I consider it as a management weakness. There must always be plan B and C and D.

[madchick] 19/2/2015 10:18

If the hearing goes well, I wonder whether IOF will feel able to announce a JV shortly, or whether it will wait until it's all firm and in writing. If, that is, a JV is basically agreed and not still being debated... (which it could be, or dumped, for all I know).

[jasisdad] 19/2/2015 10:02

Super, presume this is a local court? If so and as you have already intimated this is backwater country, so is it possible Carlisle may "know" the judge and therefore influence proceedings. Although factually we should not have an issue on this being awarded what can we do if a wrong decision (for IOF) is made? Especially as it appears there is no appeal? Thanks

[odvod] 19/2/2015 10:00

double post

[ridicule] 19/2/2015 09:55

Of course all this water debate about a non core IOF business is because, the cash injection that results, will enable an expansive vision for the core Iodine business development strategy to be rolled out. This is key to the value perception of IOF, particularly if the core business ramp up can be achieved without dilution.

Today is clearly a watershed (pun intended) day for the company and all who sail in her.

[odvod] 19/2/2015 09:41

agreed
One other Q. Is a history of granting the water rights littered with appeals? Is this usual? Precedence tells a lot on how a case will go.

[superg1] 19/2/2015 09:37

O/T Are Afren buyers nuts?

Have they not checked the debt figures. I feel for them and hope those affected make some money, but the figures don't stack up.

[odvod] 19/2/2015 09:26

SG1 - what would the odds COS be after all in your opinion? TIA

Its THE Buffett moment BTW from where I can see it.

[superg1] 19/2/2015 09:24

Oh and the main point of the various other permits.

It's not for the HE to be aware of all those emails and comment in 100's of permits. He becomes aware of them during hearings when folks present evidence.

That service area email exchange, and details of Carlisle's own service area if presented to the HE means he will be able to instantly dismiss any point about service areas. He can also consider in fact that the service area for IOF can legitimately be double the size of the one the applied for.

So if IOF present that, Carlisle's point on that topic will be binned, and no further reference to it will be allowed.

It's so much easier for an HE to make decisions and support his decisions in writing if it's handed to him on a plate. That was the whole point of my digging, to understand it, and if available, present some easy gifts, which speeds up the process.

After all Lance was doing it all for £1, so I was glad to help out, if it does indeed help.

Can someone please list Bod members that have taken a £1 salary pay for the good of shareholders on any company.

Mr Barder have you ever done that or gifted any of your shares to incoming employees. Nope £200k plus nicely going into the bank each year and an ever-increasing pile of options.

[superg1] 19/2/2015 09:10

CK I think he can, but would need to have some point of law to appeal. He hasn't got a point let alone a point of law.

His own permit award is one of the best exhibits to support IOF.

It's just a balanced system, even though he talks a pile of junk, he gets his day in court because a muppet deemed his point, which is not fact, as valid.

I say muppet, but I suspect they have no obligation to check them.

[superg1] 19/2/2015 09:01

All I know is IOF took my report, but didn't think they would need much help.

As Tom said in the interview he sees it as a blip in the road which they will drive through. In news they call it weak and show great confidence.

All I did was check the facts to see if their confidence had some grounds. While doing that I noted points they may have not been aware of.

I'm sure the Bureau internal comms re an agreed service area was missed. They have set themselves a standard there of a 100 mile radius from a depot.

IOF's claim is for a 50 mile radius. Carlisle claims the service area is exaggerated and not viable, yet his service area is bigger than that, and the 2nd largest of the 18 permits he mentions.

The largest permit service area is a 100 mile radius, that's recorded as fact by the bureau, and created by them.

An internal bureau email exchange on one permit records that there is no legislation for service areas and that it would fall under the general rule of ‘reasonable and believable information’.

After a while they came up with a 100 mile radius and 12 counties as acceptable for that permit, in the same area as IOF.

Every little helps.

Once the day is over I'll post the relevant permit numbers and pages to look at on various points if folks want them.

[king_roster_iii] 19/2/2015 09:01

Goodness they're all crawling out of the woodwork now.

[captain_kurt] 19/2/2015 08:43

Carlisle (objector) cannot appeal imo

[danster4] 19/2/2015 08:41

So the most likely outcome is, Carlisle loses, but then appeals and we are on another 3 month wait, or can a decision be so final by the HE, that an appeal cannot be made?

[superg1] 19/2/2015 08:39

I don't have any IOF contacts re water, there are other contacts but they aren't mine.

[superg1] 19/2/2015 08:37

No I didn't check re public access. It's in bureau offices.

If it was a water court case then I expect it would be. The case Carlisle has is so poor I saw little point in investigating the public access point.

If he wins it's a shocker and should be over-turned in court. I've checked his facts, and most of it is untrue.