Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[spike_1] 05/6/2015 00:20

Perhaps this is key:

48. Prior to Carlisle’s objection, it does not appear that the Department’s practice was subject to challenge or objection. Having considered the nature of Carlisle’s objection and evaluated the evidence against the statutory criteria of §§ 85-2-310(9)(c) and -311(1)(d), this Hearing Examiner concludes that despite DNRC’s practice in past marketing permit decisions and its resultant reliance upon “letters of intent,” Montana law requires an applicant to include “each firm contractual agreement for the specified amount of water for each person using the
water” and to prove, with precision, the amount of water that will actually be used pursuant to §§ 85-2-310(9)(c)(v)(D) and 311, MCA.

[senden11] 05/6/2015 00:09

Well, it certainly seems Iofina is paying the price for previous lax scrutiny. Surely, such flagrant inconsistencies (such as have been eloquently highlighted on this board) can easily be challenged with the pool of talent we have on the payroll. A much longer term game than I'd anticipated, so I'll be flogging the Testa Rossa first thing in the morning in anticipation of (again) the next month's good news ie the H2 production figures - of Iodine, the core business!

[spike_1] 05/6/2015 00:08

Yes it may well spike down, but it will come back because it will be a buying opportunity for the core business, for the same reason it spiked down and came back up last time.

Best wishes - Mike

[monts12] 04/6/2015 23:51

I think you've panicked a few folk already with your share price commentary before the event, what's the point?
Self fulfilling prophecies and all that.

[cyberbub] 04/6/2015 23:36

I think the company have been played like a fish on a hook, by a capricious and cynical HE. How can one person give a (by their own admission) different judgement to previous judgements by their peers, and not expect it to go to appeal? The goalposts have been cynically moved, in a decision that stinks to high heaven IMO.I hope that IOF get MOUs for the water and go to appeal. I can't see it costing a fortune, it should be an easy win if they can get MOUs from the major buyers.The only problem is it will take time, probably another 6 months IMO.Meanwhile, the MMs will certainly try hard to smack the share price down tomorrow. I expect to see under 25p on a spike down.And yet we are now more or less cashflow positive, with cash in the bank, a patented process, and an iodine price likely to rise in the next 6 months..And only valued at £35M. Yes there is debt but there are ways of rolling that forward.If you don't need the money immediately and believe in Iofina's medium/long term future as a successful iodine producer, then don't be panicked into selling tomorrow IMO.No advice intended.

[gadolinium] 04/6/2015 23:28

'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.'

'Mr. Dorn creates a cloud of uncertainty with regard to who the actual end-user will be. (FOF #26)'

Very disappointing.
Regardless of the fact that the HE has moved the goal posts on the LOIs, we should surely have been better prepared to provide more detail on the letters of intent and end use in response to the HE's challenges. This line of questioning should surely have been anticipated.

[mikkydhu] 04/6/2015 22:46

If plan B involved a JV with another party to contribute to the funding of plants and receive iodine, tomorrow might be a good time to announce it.

[awolagain] 04/6/2015 22:35

SG

We have to use the old cases as a way to build a case but if the keep moving the goal posts what is the point!?

If the HE has not followed the rules then we should go after it...our Lawyer must know how to respond....or maybe we are beat and that is that. We need to know so we can move on.

[naphar] 04/6/2015 22:32

Question is, what do they, can they, will they do about it?

[superg1] 04/6/2015 22:27

Just got back, the posts were a clue. On first viewing it's nowt to do with Carlisle. One HE awards it saying the LOIs are just like others. The new one says they are not sufficient.
A nuts decision. Ames got his with one liners with letters from himself to support it.

I'm not sure the new HE comments would stand up legally if you compare old cases.

In short use the rights swap, do the discharge permit route or just bin it and crack on with iodine.

Need to read further but Sods law has kicked in it seems.

[hurricane.] 04/6/2015 22:18

Another delay, frustrating but nothing in the shareprice for water.
We await iodine production growth!

[monty panesar] 04/6/2015 22:11

I don't have a big issue with the decision as if the permit had been granted then IOF would literally had a piece of paper to wave in the air. Now they need to sign a MOU rather than LOI before they go to hearing ,something that was thought to be much of formality once it was in place...just that the HE hadn't asked for one before.

Make out of it what you like. Doesn't look like IOF's fault per se just that thing have been tightened up.

[naphar] 04/6/2015 22:08

Monty, that was the final step in the process before going to court to appeal the decision. I have no idea if new "proof" like an MOU would be accepted at that stage, or if we would even have the grounds to go to appeal.

[awolagain] 04/6/2015 21:57

Mad

I hear what you are saying. I still think the lawyers should have been on it and made sure the LOIs had all the info required and more, not less.

The note at the bottom of gives some way forward...if we can afford to keep throwing money at this!?

NOTICE
This Final Order is the Department’s final decision in this matter. A Final Order may be
appealed by a party who has exhausted all administrative remedies before the Department in
accordance with the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (Title 2, Chapter 4, Mont. Code
Ann.) by filing a petition in the appropriate court within 30 days after service of the order.

[monty panesar] 04/6/2015 21:54

I don't see a huge problem other than (another) delay. If IOF have serious end users(which I think they have or else they wouldnt have bothered) then they get them to sign MOU's and the permit gets granted. All other hurdles have been passed.

[madchick] 04/6/2015 21:45

awolagain - yes, maybe the lawyer should have been savvy enough to have looked at what the law (rather than the dnrc) required as proof.

However, the document explicitly mentions that AWS letters of intent were originally detailed and were changed to be more vague at DNRC's request. DNRC then turn round and say they've now changed their mind and, on the basis of the vagueness of the letters of intent (among other things, admittedly), they are going to deny the permit.

I'm not sure the blame can be laid on anyone there (other than DNRC, of course, but I wouldn't dare!).

Since this change of mind is framed in the same breath as noting that they'd never been challenged before, maybe we can say that the lawyer should have trodden more carefully if he was challenging DNRC, knowing that the letters of intent were maybe more vague than prudent by law, even if at the behest of DNRC.

So, I'm changing my mind now, maybe we should have stuck to the detailed letters we started with and then challenged, if we were going to challenge. But there's no guarantee that DNRC wouldn't have then turned round and still refused.

I hope they are able to resubmit another application or go for judicial review (maybe Halliburton could pay!). Maybe a JV will be announced and then judicial review requested? Who knows.

It's all very tiring and tiresome! MM3, for me, that's a fact :-)

[monty panesar] 04/6/2015 21:43

The market makers no doubt will drop the price at the open to take advantage of anyone speculating on a positive water decision.

[tim3416] 04/6/2015 21:37

I would imagine he's as disappointed as the rest of us!

[owenga] 04/6/2015 21:37

Keeping his head down.. Lol!

[germanicus] 04/6/2015 21:36

Where's SG1...busy again?

[monty panesar] 04/6/2015 21:33

The IOF water project would have been pointless persuing unless there were serious end users to generate the future $$$$ for the company. All IOF seem to need to provide something stronger than LOI's ie. MOU's then the permit will have to be granted. Just another twist to the story.

[awolagain] 04/6/2015 21:28

MadChick

If they moved the goal posts....yes we should have covered it, we paid for experts and they failed.

[woodpeckers] 04/6/2015 21:27

Well the bad news is that if anyone bought in on the hope of a good water result, they will be selling (at a loss) first thing tomorrow.

The good news is that there is very little evidence that anyone did that, so hopefully longtermers will be looking at the bigger picture.

[dropside] 04/6/2015 21:25

33123 - agree entirely madchick