Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bobbyshilling] 05/6/2015 16:29

barry, it's only non-core in name. Revenue wise it is very important to the company.

[kattatogaru] 05/6/2015 16:28

Look, the AGM is coming up on the 19th in London, I want to be there and make sure that we get away from all this bullsh*t on the fictitious water permit and get some clear answers on the core iodine business plan. Fact is, the audited annual results have gigantic holes in them and we have been promised a bunch of things that remain a mirage. As an investor I want clear books, a business plan and enough clarity to make an informed valuation of my property. None of which I have. Yes the technology works and Lance is jolly nice, but you can't put off the strategic planning indefinitely and blame global price uncertainties. You make the risks clear and contingency plans. I've been a holder for 2 years and all I hear is excuses.

[barrywhit] 05/6/2015 16:24

Non-Core and down 23%.........Have a good week-end all....

[meb123] 05/6/2015 16:24

I doubt if we will get news until the next production update . IOF will only RNS when they need to

[bobbyshilling] 05/6/2015 16:24

Meb, that's the whole point - funds from water would have accelerated everything going forward.

[meb123] 05/6/2015 16:22

For a noncore activity its suprising how much attention it is being given . Perhaps best for thr company to concentrate on iodine and tell us ( the shareholders) how they intend to drive this business forward WITHOUT funds from water

[joeblogg2] 05/6/2015 16:19

One hopes that the BOD have a plan B if this was going to be the outcome and we get some news asap Monday!!!

[severnof9] 05/6/2015 16:11

Perhaps one benefit of this news is that we have forgotten about Chile and never mention Oklahoma. Montana is where the action is

[lesable] 05/6/2015 16:08

kattatogaru
I share your frustration at this latest setback !!! Having been on board here for several years i thought the company had run out of banana skins but seemingly not !!! What was the point of the water expert if he could not navigate such a simple process !!!
On the face of it the company is in the right place at the right time as far as Iodine is concerned but will we ever see the benefits.
i admire and often get comfort from the confidence of regular posters such as SG but should we now accept that IOF is doomed to failure which will hurt me as it will many others

[lesable] 05/6/2015 16:08

kattatogaru
I share your frustration at this latest setback !!! Having been on board here for several years i thought the company had run out of banana skins but seemingly not !!! What was the point of the water expert if he could not navigate such a simple process !!!
On the face of it the company is in the right place at the right time as far as Iodine is concerned but will we ever see the benefits.
i admire and often get comfort from the confidence of regular posters such as SG but should we now accept that IOF is doomed to failure which will hurt me as it will many others

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 15:57

FWIW I can still sell 100k shares in one go, above the published bid price...

[che7win] 05/6/2015 15:55

roundup, Yes, that's my understanding, they widened it and changed the goal posts.

[roundup] 05/6/2015 15:28

I thought the Water Board was considering if Carlisle's objection was valid. We had already been granted the permit so the letters of intent were adequate. It seems to me that we are now turn down on a different issue.I'm not a lawyer so I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the law.

[bogg1e] 05/6/2015 15:27

cyber, by courts do you mean federal courts or will this appeal go through the water authorities own "court" system?

Secondly, can an application for an appeal be denied or must it be processed?

[dropside] 05/6/2015 15:26

Its lucky the water wasn't in the price.

[danwaits] 05/6/2015 15:25

I fear that we were too dependent on the current ability of our learned and esteemed legal team to anticipate problems and try to cover all bases, and more importantly, to brief and prepare our witnesses. Clearly, despite their supposed expertise, they have not performed to any competent standard. They knew that we were dealing with a bureaucratic institution, who like all bureaucrats, are never accountable and are more likely to give preference to the letter of the law, rather than to reason or logic.

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 15:03

No. Iofina lost the first decision, then won the second on appeal, but an objector with his own depot had one objection upheld, so it has gone to a 3rd and final decision... except that it can still be appealed through the courts, which is what Iofina have said they will now do.

[woolybanana] 05/6/2015 14:54

I am, as ever, confused: Iofina were appealing against the original refusal which had been on one ground, but the permit has now been refused on different grounds? Is that correct? I don't see how it can be legal if that is so. Any thoughts anyone, svp?

[bobbyshilling] 05/6/2015 14:13

Yes, but it seems by applying his interpretation of the law, he hasn't broken the law, that's why I think we are stuffed, regardless of what has gone on in the past. Also, I cannot realistically see them revoking other permits on that basis because the whole fracking industry will grind to a halt and that won't be allowed to happen. We have to seriously consider going down the path of discharging water into the Fresno reservoir and take it out downstream.

[superg1] 05/6/2015 13:59

From the final order

2 Carlisle repeatedly confuses the terms water reservation and water use permit both in his Objection and in his testimony. A reservation is a volume of water which has a protectable priority date and may be put to use in the future. State based water reservations are typically granted to municipalities, governmental entities and agencies, and conservation districts all of whom have
a foreseeable need for water but no immediate need. A Beneficial Water Use Permit issued by DNRC is a permit to appropriate a specific amount for a specific purpose, and the water must be “perfectedR21; or all put to use within a reasonable period.

The key bit

'State based water reservations are typically granted to municipalities, governmental entities and agencies, and conservation districts all of whom have
a foreseeable need for water but no immediate need.'

So those type of permits don't need to show an immediate use how much, where, and when.

The reason for that legislation is that they can't provide the info, it's impossible.

So it seems the bureau has erred on that side when awarding permits in existence. It's probably a hurdle that has been discussed at great length internally and with other parties.

Along comes this HE and applies a completely different view, which could end up with all current water depot permits being withdrawn.

The fact is oil related permits need to be slotted under water reservations. They currently sit an impossible box.

I say impossible, but the answer is for person A to identify an area he wants to drill, quote how much water he needs then apply for a permit. If he needs more, stick in another permit application.

Under the current ruling it would mean 100's of applications taking years to complete with countless extraction points to be identified, rights of way, and leasing etc etc.

The guy has applied the law which no one else has, because it's impossible to meet.

[superg1] 05/6/2015 13:50

The more I read it the more nutty it gets.

21. This Hearing Examiner finds that there will be an ongoing need for water in the oilfield and service area for the proposed permit.

So he agrees but has denied it re the LOIs. Strictly speaking he is right as the law requires that all amounts, and where they are going to be used has to be listed. That is impossible.

What we seem to have is a set of laws that don't fit for oilfield services and end producer use in that sector.

As mentioned before it's not X number of acres with X number of cattle.

It seems the bureau has applied common sense in the past and every permit awarded (in this sector) has been issued against what the law said, otherwise no fraccing could have occurred in Montana. It would have ground to a halt while every demand has to be put through the permit process as and when it arises.

With the HE having backed that in the previous hearing, it seems he made the decision on the basis that the bureau had set a standard, and thus that should be the standard for all, which is fair enough.

So why does a municipal permit and others have no requirement to list end users and places of use. It's in the small print. (next post)

[mister market] 05/6/2015 13:50

che7win 5 Jun'15 - 13:31 - 33251 of 33252 1 0

Serious question,
Could we get the old codger on the board, it might help?


Is that a euphemism?

[freshvoice] 05/6/2015 13:43

Buy his depot then ask for expansion.
Trouble is he could most probably afford to buy us more than we could afford to buy him.
Oh and he doesn't have a 15M and 5M loan to service.