Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 05/6/2015 08:44

If anyone wants to view existing LOIs for a current depot here is an example. Pages 69 and 71.

[1madmarky] 05/6/2015 08:43

Cheers SG, nice to see in black and white the stupidity of this situation.

[sandeep67] 05/6/2015 08:43

Bought 20k while on train this morning at 24.99...easy day trade and might sell for a weekend buck

[che7win] 05/6/2015 08:41

Superg, Those water depots now operating though presumably have customers taking their water, so they have factual proof of demand, but I take your point.They have changed the goals posts for us, for future applications, for future development of oil but to they now have to reexamine every water ruling out there?

[rhwillcoll] 05/6/2015 08:39

Well, all I can say is that I'm pleased I didn't invest in one of those
"get rich quick" schemes ....

[superg1] 05/6/2015 08:38

Here is what a typical Ames depot letter of intent contained for approved permits. As I said more or less one line letters.



'The buyer has intent to purchase 225 acre feet of water per year from the seller given the timely approval of the water right application and the current economic climate of the area'

service area counties listed.

That's it and it's typical for all their permits awarded.

Here is the one from IOF as in the final order


Pursuant to our conversations concerning Atlantis Water Solutions, Inc.
(“AWS) intent to apply for certain water rights in the state of Montana, Halliburton offers this letter as an expression of intent to enter into a contract with AWS for the purchase of 1,000 to 1, 500 acre feet of water per year. AWS is offering to provide a source of supply of water at a readily accessible location. Halliburton provides hydraulic fracturing and other services to industry in eastern Montana.
It is anticipated that Halliburton’s customers would use the water for various
industrial purposes which includes but not limited to hydro-fracturing, fresh water treatment of oil and gas wells for improved production, fresh water for drilling fluids used in oil, gas, and water well drilling. The water will be used in the Montana Counties of Dawson, McCone, Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan.

Application for Beneficial Water Use Permit No. 40S 30066181 by Atlantis Water Solutions LLCIt is understood that the parties would enter into a mutually acceptable Purchase and Sale Agreement that would define the commercial terms for the delivery and sale of water once AWS’s Water Right Application is approved. It is also understood that Halliburton’s intent to purchase water is predicated on the timely approval of the AWS’s water right application and is based on certain commercial and technical assumptions by Halliburton.


So the Ames letters are deemed ok but the IOF ones are not. ?????

Note the Ames final line of depending on market conditions, that IS speculation but it's also true as Oil drilling has no defined amount of wells to be drilled/completed in nay one period and methods change.


Here is the HEs comment that means no permit that exists conforms to his view. No current LOI exists (oil water depots) in Montana with those details in them, I've checked them all.

This Hearing Examiner finds that there is insufficient evidence about how the volume for each letter of intent was calculated because each letter of intent is based upon assumptions rather than a specified and identifiable need.

So the HE has come up with an LOI method that no one has complied with and it's virtually impossible to give a figure. Each company could speculate on how much they will need of course.

It's going to be an interesting appeal, as Montana in theory could end up with no water for any of it's oil wells, if the same rule is applied to existing permits.

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 08:36

Well I can sell 100k shares here in one go, at above the published bid price...I think that there is strong demand at these levels...

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 08:27

I expect that an appeal could be *lodged* quite quickly, with such a blatantly irrational decision. The argument for the appeal is obvious and will not take long to set out.However as to when it will get *heard* is another question, in backwater America. Maybe up to 6 months I would guess.NAI

[spike_1] 05/6/2015 08:25

Yup also bought more <26.5

[jbe81] 05/6/2015 08:21

Superg, timeframe for the appeal?

[che7win] 05/6/2015 08:20

Bought more, this is a steal, well pleased.

[captain_kurt] 05/6/2015 08:20

With a profitable Iodine business going forward the current share price is a steal.

[superg1] 05/6/2015 08:18

Cyber

The general comment is that in the case of IOF they have materially shifted all that went before in the decision making process.

It will be interesting to see how that stands up legally.

In theory, as the 'rules' haven't changed first, then every permit that exists for the sector should be revoked when it comes up for renewal.

On the basis of what was said, it was an easy decision to go for a legal challenge.

It's a bit of a unique scenario. The irrigation and cattle type permits which are in abundance are a completely different topic.

They have applied a chicken and egg scenario to oil.

It also conflicts with oil laws where to protect assets in most cases oil companies don't have to declare oil well performance for 12 months. That is to stop others going lease mad around an area where you may be speculating for oil and found some.

Basically we have backwater Montana in dinosaur mode, which is pretty much Montana all over.

[bobsworth] 05/6/2015 08:11

That's a very confident RNS. Pleased that Iofina are going to appeal. Talk about moving the goal posts! Will buy on any further weakness.

[nashwan123] 05/6/2015 08:10

Seems like FIFA is not unique!

[che7win] 05/6/2015 08:10

I'm trying to buy...lucky sod whoever got some below 25p

[simon301266] 05/6/2015 08:09

It's a risky play but either get in right now or wait it out until it becomes clear where the market values IOF .

[superg1] 05/6/2015 08:07

Did you also note that Scott claims the bureau asked IOF to put less detail in their LOIs and not be so specific, a request to be more vague.

It would be very nice if that is in writing somewhere, perhaps an email.

24. The letters of intent submitted by Atlantis were written at the direction of the DNRC Glasgow office personnel. Atlantis reviewed other water depot water permit applications and used a similar format. Atlantis maintains that it revised its letters of intent to be less specific and more general in accordance with advice from the Department. (Testimony of Scott Formolo
Audio Record #06 @ 1:46 and 3:48)

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 08:07

25p as I predicted...

[madchick] 05/6/2015 08:05

I think it's a tightening of the rules (midway through IOF's application without informing them), which, if we are ever successful in obtaining a permit, should also be to IOF's advantage. I agree with gad that it's disappointing that Forest obviously didn't answer questions very well. Maybe if he had and we gave the detail at the hearing, we would have got it.

Glad they are contesting it, though. Let's hope they get their act together this time!

[kattatogaru] 05/6/2015 08:05

Sh8t the bed, I can't wait for ACT to pipe up now. Might just not check IOF board for a while yet.

Well, maybe there's a silver lining - they can concentrate on the core business of, y'know, IODINE!

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 08:04

The RNS todays says "intends" to take legal action about the decision... not "is considering" which is more usual... they must feel they have a case...

[superg1] 05/6/2015 07:57

Just read the final order, but not all the posts yet.

I assume some have pointed it out.

In short this hearing examiner, without knowing it, has declared every oil related permit (and depot) as invalid.

In his words he has gone against beat practice previously employed by the bureau.
It was a point I raised too. How can the bureau ask for only 50% of the amount applied for in LOIs as that means the other 50% IS speculative. I agree with him but that's the procedure that was being followed by the bureau.

The main point is beneficial use. I have read the LOI and it's as good as it gets for any other LOI for permits that have been awarded. In fact only 2 permits as I recall record as much info as IOF did.

Many Ames LOI's simply read. Water for fracking etc. Then 'Strictly business'. Literally one line letters.

So either the water bureau have issued various permits that should never have been awarded, or the appeal will award IOF the permit on the basis of the material shift in the decision making process.

It is certainly 'unfair' that the Ames and other depots are allowed to operate on what a HE has just described as 'speculative use'

No letter of intent for any water depot that exists in Montana has details specifying how much will be used where, and how those figures were calculated.


One hearing examiner states the LOIs are up to standard and one not.

As we know some Ames LOIs were just false and are shockingly poor. Why the bureau ever authorised them is a mystery.

IOF are right to appeal imo.

As it stands there should be no depots in Montana based on what he has said.

How can anyone forecast exactly what water will be needed for this type of business, it's impossible as each company changes what they are doing and which type of completion method they are going to use.

It's not like the usual permits which have a formula for X number of acres and X number of cattle.

Based on the comments Carlisle's permit should never have been awarded.

So based on the comments of the prior hearing examiner and existing LOIs for other depots, then that decision is sods law as it raised issues previously OK'd by the bureau and another HE.

[che7win] 05/6/2015 07:51

Simon,
I think that the ruling took the full 90 days made many skeptical of the outcome.

Personally, I'm just glad we know where we are now....I hate waiting on news like this.