Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[woodpeckers] 01/3/2015 09:25

No Iofina's 10th birthday! The cake is being designed as I write. Any ideas most welcome.

[superg1] 01/3/2015 08:17

Thanks Nick I didn't know about that one. Trust woody to send one back over the net. Is it your birthday?

[nicklad1968] 01/3/2015 07:15

March 4th is Midstates Petroleum Q4 2014 Earnings Conference Call

[woodpeckers] 28/2/2015 18:04

You forgot March 15th SG.

[superg1] 28/2/2015 17:55

Stop showing off Tim :-)

The tough one is the 4th.

[naphar] 28/2/2015 15:41

6th is next water deadline
7th is anniversary of amendment of terms to Stena bond
27th is date of last years market update

However, I suspect only 6th is correct, as the other two are historical and unlikely to be of interest to IOF now. But someone had to start!

[tim3416] 28/2/2015 15:40

March 3rd - Final year results for SQM?
March 5th - Sqm conference call?

[tim3416] 28/2/2015 15:36

I'll have a go at 27th.

"Under the SISP, and with the assistance of Rothschild, RB Energy has actively solicited expressions of interest from third parties for the acquisition of all or a partial interest in its Québec lithium and Chilean iodine projects or for an investment in the Company and a restructuring of its financial obligations. Third parties that executed a non-disclosure agreement conducted preliminary due diligence over a period that ended on January 23, 2015, the deadline for submission of non-binding Letters of Intent ("LOI's").
The Company received a number of LOI's and, with its advisors, has reviewed these non-binding proposals. A number of parties were notified by January 31, 2015 that they had been selected as qualified bidders. These parties have been invited to continue to conduct due diligence with the goal of submitting final binding offers by March 27, 2015."

[superg1] 28/2/2015 14:16

IOF date quiz

Answers in a post (if you dare).

Why are these dates of potential interest to IOF in March.

3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th (no prizes re that one) and the 27th.

[superg1] 28/2/2015 13:05

Oh

And before the usual suspects say we are all going to die when the regulation is challenged

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING:
Senate votes to keep 'Halliburton loophole'; regulation stays with states
Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter
EnergyWire: Thursday, January 29, 2015

[superg1] 28/2/2015 13:01

Called the 'Halliburton loophole' which is more about the injected fluids

[awolagain] 28/2/2015 12:46

SG

I just love it...the government will not allow it to continue. The public, if they get a hold of it will be screaming that they are been poisoned.
So I am wondering if the New York Tines had this kind of information might it just move things along a bit quicker lol! Election coming up??
I know the laws regarding the marine industry and dumping 'grey or black water' over the side will have you locked up very quickly in US waters!

[superg1] 28/2/2015 12:03

Awol

There are reports a few years back about the big companies like Hal throwing millions into what the saw as a recycling boom on the way. There was big interest in it, but fresh water supply was preferred.

The US clean ater act covers industrial water. but I have read amny times about there being an issue re farck water as for some reason they escape the legislation, it may be down to lines like this

The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.'

'however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.'

Perhaps 'directly' left a door open as I see in Pennsylvania they spray produced water onto roads to help with ice.

I recall various comments about oil companies not having to declare the contents of their waste water.

Anyway in checking for pollutants due to the horizontal frack boom, the scientists found a problem existed with conventional wells too (the iodate and ammonium). So now the balls are in the air re public risk.

I suspect as the debate unfolds, the requirement will be for all waste water to be injected in Pennsylvania and New York, but they don't have the capacity to do that due to geological problems. So it would all have to be shipped out of state at great expense. Unless of course someone has the tech to remove it more cheaply than out of state disposal which cost about $8 pb I believe.

Hal Cleanwave I think came out at $3 pb but they would need help re iodates it seems.

Now all the above fits Bills CV well.

It seems interesting to me. Especially as IOF have the 3rd party iodine extraction patent for all US brine 3rd party deals (SWDs).

[awolagain] 28/2/2015 11:31

Non Exec is fine as long as he points us in the right direction....which if I am reading between the lines....and now able to read on the line... he is doing his job very well.

[madchick] 28/2/2015 11:04

On the other hand, he is only a non-executive director - just monitors and may contribute to strategy but doesn't really do any hands-on stuff for the company (as I understand it).

[awolagain] 28/2/2015 10:06

I think you have hit the jackpot with that SG...we have been looking in the wrong direction completely in regard to his appointment. The water permit is fast becoming a side issue...great as it is and the benefits will be fantastic for the company, but a side issue of the bigger picture that you have revealed...and our possibility of a JV....for what lol!

[sandbag] 28/2/2015 10:04

If you click on the PDF link here you'll see Bill Bellamy's "cv". Very impressive. I believe sg1 may be correct about the input from him. Applying for a water permit in a sleepy US backwater is well below his abilities.

[dcgray21] 28/2/2015 09:54

Considering that the IOF / Halliburton connection goes back in time then the question is why haven't they partnered up on this earlier - is this due to impending legislative change or Halliburton requiring IOF to demonstrate their tech really works ?

[superg1] 28/2/2015 09:01

IOF have in previous presentations mentioned getting into the water disposal side of things.

I know what we all thought re this guy

Dr. William D. Bellamy, Non-Executive Director

Dr. Bellamy is a Fellow and Senior Vice President of the Water Business Group at CH2M HILL, Inc. (“CH2M”), a company he has worked at for 30 years. CH2M is one of the largest consulting engineering companies in the world providing leadership and strategic direction for the water business and application of technologies worldwide. Dr. Bellamy has participated in energy and sustainability forums, including as a panellist at the World Future Energy Conference in Abu Dhabi, the World Bank Sustainable Cities Symposium and the Future of Water Economic Forum. Dr. Bellamy serves as Professor of Practice at the University of Wyoming, where he teaches graduate courses and is responsible for securing grants and research funding in the areas of water resources, water treatment and sustainable energy development.


So why has he not got involved in the water permit process?. It's clear from documents that Forest Dorn and Scott Formolo have been dealing with that.

So we may have been going down the wrong track when this guy was appointed.

[naphar] 28/2/2015 08:28

So existing processes can remove the ammonium if my skim read is correct. Edit:That bit could be left to Hali or another partner if IOF went down this route.

[naphar] 28/2/2015 08:16

So first question is, can IoF tech also remove the ammonium? No idea if the Atlantis water contained it, so the fact that could be pumped into rivers after iodine removal cannot be relied upon on its own, in determining if this is a valid business plan option.

If IOf tech cannot remove the ammonium, can it be modified to with an additional step?

And then a business development question. Is it wise for IOF to move to yet another state, in another tweaked business model, wouldn't they be better to first maximise what they have and prove themselves in Oklahoma? That also goes for IT, whatever and wherever IT is!