Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[madchick] 04/6/2015 21:25

But fact is: we can't change what's done!

[serratia] 04/6/2015 21:24

Thanks gavin,

TDW just give the closing price.

[madchick] 04/6/2015 21:23

mm3, I do get completely where you're coming from, but there were a lot of facts in our favour (as stated in the final judgment, they originally accepted Letters of Intent) and it's a fact that they changed their criteria for acceptable proof of need in the middle of all of it. That couldn't have been known (it could have been speculated) before now.

I actually think it's more of a fluffy thing of interpersonal skills / thinking things through psychologically that may have stuffed things up here, but that's just opinion, so ignore me!

[gavinlewis01] 04/6/2015 21:20

Serratia,

I use on an online stockbroker - just checked and its displaying the closing bid at 27p. This will be reviewed tomorrow morning and the auction will come in to play and probably render this price inaccurate anyway....

[rogerbridge] 04/6/2015 21:19

Well, I think that the decision stinks and it should be challenged. However , I am sick and tired of water, but still excited by the iodine prospects.
IOF shares are going into the bottom draw for a few months and I will see what is happening then. Life is too short, but I certainly will not be selling up.
Now time to kick the cat and have a wee tot or two and forget about IOF for a while.

[monty panesar] 04/6/2015 21:18

Fact is they were EBITDA positive in Q1.

[monty panesar] 04/6/2015 21:17

If Halliburton stand up in court with a full business plan and MOU then they still have to give it. Looks like a delay rather than anything else if the potential users are serious.

[monkeymagic3] 04/6/2015 21:16

How about we all now just start focusing on facts?

[serratia] 04/6/2015 21:14

gavin,

Where do you find the 10% stuff.

[dropside] 04/6/2015 21:14

From a purchasing point of view, I would not want to give firm commitments to buy a fixed quantity of water, when I wasn't completely sure of my demand. That would depend on the fracking and drilling schedule and that would be variable with the price of oil and availability of capital. So the LOIs may have been the best IOF could get. A bit of a catch 22.

I just suspect their tactics may have backfired as previously mentioned, using a previous water judge may not have helped too on an inter-personal level.

[madchick] 04/6/2015 21:14

Yes, I think it's unfair, too! (now I'm sounding like a sulky child)

But maybe that will give IOF a chance in judiciary review.

I was sick of all this even before the decision!

[che7win] 04/6/2015 21:13

I think a judiciary review may be an option, simply because they have changed the application of the rules for us.

[woodpeckers] 04/6/2015 21:11

Perhaps this is why most companies streamline and stick to one line of business. We have taken so many hits on the water news it's unbelievable! Let's stick to what we're good at from now on and perhaps the share price might actually start to go up!

[gavinlewis01] 04/6/2015 21:10

"The hearing examiner’s decision in the present case is a departure from that past practice"......

Shoudn't Iofina have been informed about this during the application?!?!

The gap tomorrow morning could be interesting, had a quick peak now and its displaying approx 10%

[naphar] 04/6/2015 21:10

It seems to me that this hearing examiner has decided to depart from previously accepted procedure, and has tightened the requirements. I can see a new application going in, meeting the new requirements somehow. Or they will appeal in the court, possibly, but that could prove costly

[freshvoice] 04/6/2015 21:10

Looks as though Mr. Dorn has some explaining to do.

34. This Hearing Examiner finds that the Applicant does not specifically identify the end users of the water requested. While three separate entities provided letters of intent, it appears from Mr. Dorn’s testimony that at least a portion of the volume identified may have been double counted water destined for the same well site or end user. However, because the end user is not identified in the letters of intent I find it is not possible to resolve these uncertainties based upon the evidence of record.

35. The letters of intent are vague and indefinite in identifying the end user of the water and thus provide no assurance that Atlantis has a bona fide intent to appropriate the requested volume of water.

Should be outside the Boss's office at 0800 hrs tomorrow

[semper vigilans] 04/6/2015 21:08

Blattered?

[monty panesar] 04/6/2015 21:08

I think they will still end up getting permit if Halliburton et al. sign MOU's rather LOI's but is another 3-6 months down the line.What more intent do they want?!

[rogerbridge] 04/6/2015 21:06

Spot on chew, I don't think they wanted to grant it and found a way out. If it had been a level playing field we would have got it.

[freshvoice] 04/6/2015 21:05

Yes looks like our 10m$ to fund expansion has fallen by the wayside.

[che7win] 04/6/2015 21:01

Well,
The old codger wins on appeal, I guess Montana is a closer knit community than some thought.

[woodpeckers] 04/6/2015 21:00

The company have always been adamant that the water was going to be handled separately from the main company so this really doesn't affect the main business but, as always stated, would have been the icing on the cake. No doubt there will be sellers tomorrow, but the main business remains in tact and is growing.

[dropside] 04/6/2015 20:59

I can't take another year of this, they can keep their water in their filthy river