Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bogg1e] 18/5/2015 12:51

There is no rumour!!!

Why do we currently have an 8% spread?

[escapetohome] 18/5/2015 12:27

Tern looking strong share price is up.

Hope the Iof run up continues

[odvod] 18/5/2015 12:05

maybe it is just buy the rumor sell the facts ???????

[che7win] 18/5/2015 11:56

Someone is after stock here...

[stupidboypike] 18/5/2015 10:54

super, very helpful - thanks. Best regards SBP

[superg1] 18/5/2015 10:18

sbp.

The short answer is final orders are very long and complex and take a long time to complete, even if the outcome is obvious.

EG one recent non-starter, was never going to succeed for very simple reasons, yet the final order is 40 pages long listing every aspect. It could have been refused in one paragraph and if the applicant had a brain cell he would have realised it was a non starter.

HEs list every aspect I assume to cover all angles for any appeal, as if they covered the one point, the applicant could correct that, and go over it all again.

Final order complexity doesn't seem to be too different to what would happen in stated cases in the UK. They consist of very lengthy commentary on the reason for a decision in law.

It does come across as OTT, but I suppose being Montana they have plenty of time on their hands, and if they are paid in the same was as a lawyer is, then they'll do a long report.

The good thing is they seem to stick to what the law says and past commentary re water cases, so we should get it no problem. If not, if I were IOF I'd appeal, as they would be contradicting the law, and what they have already said in past cases.

[stupidboypike] 18/5/2015 09:37

super,

Is there any evidence that if we go right to the deadline there is more chance of a refusal? Simplistically, I would have thought if it was very clear in our favour we would expect an announcement very soon (surprised we haven't had it already)?

Best regards SBP

[superg1] 18/5/2015 09:11

I has a good read of existing decisions re the water bureau/hearings results this weekend as in recent posts.

My confidence is very high for the award of the permit, but enhanced due to the comments in some cases.

What the HE has more or less said is that they need more water available in areas where water is legally available, as they have a number of closed basins where they can't award permits. Those areas are therefore 'water short', with a demand.


If you recall one LOI stated they would haul water 300 miles for customers and have done so in the past. The bureau had no defined service area guidance so they applied their own guess under what they called 'reasonable and believable'. From that they came up with a 100 mile service area radius as acceptable.

HOWEVER, on the legal side of things a HE has recorded that there is in effect no boundary, as the test is feasibility of transporting water to water short areas. Cost forms no part of the feasibility consideration.

So on the back of that decision, having declared Montana needs more permits in areas where water is available, to service areas where water is short, then to deny the permit, would contradict what they have already stated.

There is also a line about meeting contracts. EG How can a depot supply to another when they are fully contracted elsewhere.

In the case of current depots as pointed out, they have contracts in excess of what they can supply, so technically under the water laws there is no water available for IOF customers.

As they say, you can't have it both ways.

[che7win] 18/5/2015 08:56

Superg,
Yes, TUNG will be in double figures soon, I doubt it's even with the 80p I had slapped on it a year or so ago now...losses increasing.

I think IOF will pass it on the way up this year....

[superg1] 18/5/2015 08:48

Che

Tung another -15% so far this morning, good call.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 18/5/2015 05:46

The weekends used to be jam-packed with over-enthusiastic posts from all and sundry. You guys been away somewhere? Together? Crikey, hope everyone's okay...

[superg1] 16/5/2015 09:54

I'm not going to go into detail as it would take a long time. I have included below part of an old post.

When I checked all the permits mentioned in the IOF objection I found what thought were false letters of intent in the series of John Ames permit applications. Even one where it was an employee of his that made an application in someone else's name.

My query was over Agri industries LOIs which are in fact John Ames supplying an LOI from himself but he doesn't supply water for the oil industry via that route, and hence it was just a plain fraud.

The other one was what I will call 'rent an LOI' otherwise known as Wildcat trucking, who seem to bang in an LOI for every Ames permit. LOIs to a level that they would need about 10 times the trucks that they have.

Well good old Ames has been caught with his trousers down. The bureau have noted that he hasn't sold anything of note to any of the LOI customers from his Bainville depot.

In fact there are 2 he hasn't sold any water to.... you guessed it, Agri industries, and Wild cat trucking.

One LOI is from his CFO to him. I can't believe the bureau fell for the LOIs, it was blatantly obvious what was going on.

He has however sold to 50 others, not under contract it seems. In other words his applications were more or less false in terms of the beneficial use LOIs. That is just for one depot, he has others and I bet the same theme exists.

I think he will get a kick in the gnads come renewal date.

Nice to see what seem clearly fraudulent is now being noted.

The original comment re the Carlisle objection

This is probably the biggest misrepresentation by him throughout the entire objection. Some permits related to John Ames look highly suspicious re LOIs.
John Ames in many cases supplies LOIs from his own business Agri industries who don’t seem to supply the oil industry. They seem to be just speculation. There seems to be a common theme of Wild cat trucking appearing with Agri LOIs.
Wild cat trucking have built up a number of LOIs amounting to a sizeable supply ability. Yet the limited detail about them suggests they have just a 12 truck capability. This is the same company that said they would haul it 300 miles to support the permit by Montana H20.
If Wild cat have a 12 truck capability the LOIs they have provided are impossible to commit to by a large margin. I don’t know if such circumstances are acceptable to the water bureau. If it isn’t then it seems there was a period where the bureau have been misled on a few permits.

[che7win] 15/5/2015 19:54

Thanks,
A triple bagger for anyone who got in at the bottom (not me).

Superg, I can imagine why you say that, I agree very much with that sentiment! We will see how we go from here, potential is enormous but a lot of hard graft to do.

I have put in enormous effort on this one, it could go anywhere from here.

Also interested to see TUNG getting down to the 80p I valued it at ages ago, glad I follow my own instinct.

IOF will come good, it will be at 150p in no time once iodine gets into a firm uptrend IMHO...especially with the AIM market playing catch up.

[superg1] 15/5/2015 19:15

Nice one Che, well done, but don't you mean tfft rather than bingo :-)

[freshvoicem] 15/5/2015 17:42

AWOL
Thanks

[awolagain] 15/5/2015 16:52

It looks like a buy plus the 10K just before at 35.50p

[festario] 15/5/2015 16:18

Monts.... he got derided, by ME!

[freshvoicem] 15/5/2015 16:11

Anyone with L2, was 50k shares really a sell or a buy at 1602?

[woodpeckers] 15/5/2015 16:10

IOF's turn next hopefully. :-)

[woodpeckers] 15/5/2015 15:44

Well done che! Nice bottle of rioja to celebrate this weekend I would imagine. :-)

[che7win] 15/5/2015 15:39

TPL.....BINGO!

[superg1] 15/5/2015 14:53

He's busy Fest