Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[napoleon 14th] 06/6/2015 10:32

What is usualy blah-blah-blah has turned into gurgle-gurgle-gurgle here!

So where are these mucking fobiles?
Have we seen one in working order?
If they do work, then what are the plans for a decent roll out?

If it ain't cash, it's trash!

[superg1] 06/6/2015 10:21

booby

re

but it seems that the HE is within the rules and this scenario should have been recognised as a possibility. So all I am asking is why wasn't it?


That's the issue and well covered by Naphar. previous permit awards have been made on the same info IOF gave. In fact IOFs is as good as the best applications re LOIs. The Ames LOIs (available to view by all) are shockingly poor but they got through.

As stated I have viewed very LOI for every permit listed in the case, none of them list amounts required or who is using it for what. They are all general descriptions for oil field use.

How could IOF see that coming when it seems the bureau requested that IOF submit LOIs with less information in.

It's mentioned in the Final order.

We could probably view the actual letter or email exchange if the full case was online but it's not as yet.

If you park on yellow lines at 7pm when the sign says no parking from 8am to 6pm you can't possibly you can't possibly forsee that you would get a ticket if a warden came across your car.

You then get a ticket and when you challenge it that particular warden states that it's a local rule to facilitate parking in that area, but legally it's in an exclusion zone where parking isn't allowed until after 8pm.

I suggest you would be challenging the ticket.

Nowt IOF could do, had it been HE Vogler taking the case this wouldn't have happened.

[1madmarky] 06/6/2015 08:54

I personally think it's all about the size of the permit. Hopefully we will get backing from Hal and essential force the issue and get our permit. Possibly a smaller amount but we must be able to get the permit else as has been pointed out by others, no one can get a permit to supply the oil industry. Just another bloody delay. AIMHO

[cyberbub] 06/6/2015 08:46

I agree that the HE may have felt forced to deny the permit because he had a legally correct objection. The fact that previous practice was different is irrelevant. Probably in the past when it was 'local boys' making applications for relatively small depots, they got through on LOIs on the nudge-and-wink. When a massive application comes through, and from a foreign-registered company to boot, they have felt that they have to apply the law rigorously.The question of what happens to the existing permits when they come up for renewal still remains. It may be that once awarded, they can't be challenged apart from perhaps rescinding any unused portion? But this is really of little relevance to oir situation...

[cyberbub] 06/6/2015 08:44

I agree that the HE may have felt forced to deny the permit because he had a legally correct objection. The fact that previous practice was different is irrelevant. Probably in the past when it was 'local boys' making applications for relatively small depots, they got through on LOIs on the nudge-and-wink. When a massive application comes through, and from a foreign-registered company to boot, they have felt that they have to apply the law rigorously.The question of what happens to the existing permits when they come up for renewal still remains. It may be that once awarded, they can't be challenged apart from perhaps rescinding any unused portion? But this is really of little relevance to oir situation...

[naphar] 05/6/2015 23:49

Sg, that's one piece I just don't get. If the amount was a real issue, the HE could also have issued a permit for a lower volume.
I think the much bigger point for this HE was that LOIs were not sufficient as per the law. Carlisle made that point (ironically given he has previously benefitted from them allowing it, but understandably in the circumstances), and this HE felt it had to be upheld.

A contrarian view could be that, with a legally correct objection, and a workaround process to avoid the requirement for illegal contracts to get the permit, any HE would have been between a rock and a hard place. Their only course of action may have been to deny, and hope it goes to judicial review, which, assuming a positive outcome for IOF, could get their previous policy backed up by a new case of law, making it "legal"

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/6/2015 22:40

Cheggers, don't you dare give up posting!

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/6/2015 22:39

Graham, maybe set-up an IOF forum on one of those free sites that allow you complete control? Getting too many bears on here... for my liking lol ;))

[che7win] 05/6/2015 22:38

Ok Fest,
No more from me on the subject, I decided to restrict my posting today after your post.

That changed when I read Madchicks comment.
Madchick, by the way, I appreciate your comments on the water, you are just as valuable a contributor here and elsewhere.

Just because I post openly doesn't mean others have to agree with me.

I am well aware there are issues here, I did post that just about everything that could go wrong has gone wrong, yet we have a core business that is stabilised AND growing iodine production 50%.

Superg - re moose, that's bizarre!

Enough from me.

[bobbyshilling] 05/6/2015 22:35

SG, thank you for your post and I agree and can see where you are coming from; this must be like a lightning bolt for the BOD, not to mention us, but it seems that the HE is within the rules and this scenario should have been recognised as a possibility. So all I am asking is why wasn't it? After all, we do have a water expert on board in Mr Bellamy, plus I assume lawyers. Of course I am no expert in these matters, but it seems to me that the HE has interpreted the law differently, but still within the law. So irrespective of what has been passed before, we are where we are, down to an individuals interpretation. It may come to pass in the future that this might be overturned, but why wasn't this possibility recognised by our own experts? Further, why wasn't appropriate measures/ paperwork submitted to protect us? I'm afraid that common sense and past rulings do not necessarily apply - and one needs to look no further than some of the shambolic decisions made here in the UK by our own courts of 'justice'.

[che7win] 05/6/2015 22:28

Fest,
Another one for you.

Go check cash end of 2014 H1, then cash end of year.

Then tell me if it went up or down.

Think for yourself, don't be swayed by the Bears any more than the Bulls...and vice versa. That's my motto.

[che7win] 05/6/2015 22:21

Superg,
This is the bit I can't get my head around:

"On top of that IOF claim as in the final order that they were asked to reduce the amount of information in their LOI's".

It is nuts, I can understand why they were so forceful in their RNS this morning, I bet when the HE saw that he got a great big chill up his spine :-)

[superg1] 05/6/2015 22:10

The completely nuts point.

When a permit is awarded it's not set in stone. The bureau gives time to 'perfect' (make use of the allocation)the permit.

If you look at Ames and Carlisle, they have had extensions to do that. At given dates (yearly I think) the bureau can rescind any unused portion of a permit.

So why all the hullabaloo over the amounts requested. Folks don't build depots to waste cash for the fun of it, if they consistently aren't selling it, all then take that portion back, simple.

I should have paid attention to that Montana front page news about the rousing rendition of Rudolf the red nosed reindeer at an Xmas get together.

That's Montana for you. This decision will be the most excitement that HE will ever get if he stays in Montana, well 2nd on his list if he went to the xmas do.

[beeezzz] 05/6/2015 22:07

Not another PDX my poor old heart won't take it!!!!!!! at the end of the day its only money, I'll have to print some more.

SG....I take my hat of to you for being so positive, maybe IOF should hire you to sort this mess out, it seems the numpties they have are not up to it.

[woodpeckers] 05/6/2015 22:06

bobby, we're in agreement, we don't want to miss this great opportunity.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 05/6/2015 21:55

'this is a company that has a distinct advantage in it's sector'

(Speechless)

[woodpeckers] 05/6/2015 21:46

ridicule, whether its is a farm-in or a placing, either way, I'm just trying to make the point that this is a company that has a distinct advantage in it's sector and as such will attract investment on it's core business, regardless of 'extra assets' like water, helium etc.

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 21:45

A JV, or simply licence the technology out for others to use, would be even better. Zero capital required, and we could skim at least 10% royalty off the top of any licensed sales easily... our tech is patented so we are in the driving seat... We should be talking to major iodine consumers ASAP... let them invest $10m in a few plants and we skim our royalty off thankyou very much...Frankly I don't see even after today why the company doesn't also move forward with at least 1 mobile unit. We have $7m in the bank, and yes while we have to think of 2017 and the debt repayment, we have been led to believe that the mobile design is complete and they are fairly cheap and quick to build... can anyone remind me of the cost please? Putting out an RNS saying that the company will be constructing 1 or 2 mobiles which will be in operation by Xmas would be very well regarded IMO...NAI