Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[monty panesar] 06/6/2015 20:38

Tim,

Misread your comment. Yes off take agreements with end users has been talked about before. Makes sense when the chemicals division hits full capacity. I'm interested to know from the AGM how much it will cost build a new plant using kit from IO1. I am thinking it should be less than $2m. The titanium towers are the most expensive part. Let's hope they have another location like Io2 that can do 250t per annum.

Monty

[tim3416] 06/6/2015 20:12

You'd certainly know all about that Germanicus!!

[bobsworth] 06/6/2015 20:06

Looking forward to the AGM.

[tim3416] 06/6/2015 18:56

A bid is obviously a consideration especially at this ridiculous share price. But with proven consistent low cost production I was thinking the larger Japanese companies would now be more confident in entering into a JV to assist expansion.

[monty panesar] 06/6/2015 18:32

A bid is the last thing I want for several years.

Once they get to $50t per month and OPEX below $20 with the Chemicals divisions profits on top they can start the next wave of expansion and shareholders can start to reap the rewards over the next couple of years.Hopefully more info will be forthcoming to those who attend the AGM.

[tim3416] 06/6/2015 18:25

I agree Monty. Plus if they can consistently produce above 50t per month with 5 plants and keep the opex below $20 then surely they will start to attract the attention of the bigger companies??

[monty panesar] 06/6/2015 17:47

Yesterday's drop was one caused by sentiment rather than anything to do with the underlying iodine business. I don't hold any blame toward the IOF management for the denial.If IOF are able to consistently produce 50t of iodine per month I think you will see them press the button for expansion.

The production rise to 42t in the first quarter was impressive as it was the coldest quarter. If they get to 50 then the OPEX falls to $20/kg.

[che7win] 06/6/2015 17:00

Agreed Bobby and Superg,
Especially your last sentence Superg.

[bobbyshilling] 06/6/2015 16:08

Yes, at least we now have a proven and patented method of iodine collection with many available targets. I would be happy for them to announce the building of even just a couple of portable units and get them up and running to prove their performance and worth. Water is still in play at this moment and may yet come good.

[superg1] 06/6/2015 15:47

Bobby

The comment about the bureau asking for less info in LOIs was strange, but now having read up on the Montana board of Oil and Gas rules, there are aspects that must be kept confidential.

It does seem the bureau were not incompetent in issuing other permits and it may be why they accepted Ames LOIs which have no detail in them.

It seems they have twisted things to fit as there isn't an option available.

As stated before there is no rule or law covering service areas but the bureau came up with a guidance of a 100 mile radius as a rule of thumb.

The Ames case has left that unwritten 'rule' null and void. It's one that won't matter as it's unlikely anyone will want to be hauling water over 100 miles.
It's just an example of where water use for wells is a new area for Montana, so they have no laws and rules that sufficiently fit.

It's certainly not over yet by a long way.

No core of course and the iodine side is the key sector, it will be around a lot longer than the Bakken.

On the iodine front progress is being made.

I think Mad summed it up best, 2 years ago we had no production or proven tech. Their claims were a bit high and were affected by some poor decision making by staff now all booted out. Overall for a comparable in that industry they are making good progress.

Hopefully those that don't like the company have sold up and moved on, that's up to them.

[bobbyshilling] 06/6/2015 15:24

SG, thanks for your answer re: rights swap.

It seems like the Montana water laws/rules are rather messy and open to interpretation the more we dig. You are probably right in that the HE decision is open to a decent challenge; IOF seem to think that is the case also in their rns. It may even transpire that these laws/rules/guidelines mean that it might even turn out easier for IOF to overturn the decision, given the wide parameters of varying interpretations. Actually I hope that the BOD are reading this bb and glean some additional info. I am sure that there will be lots of questions asked and points put forward at the AGM regarding the permit and Atlantis as a whole. On re-reading some of the companies earlier rns's way back, they do say how the water side of the business can be lucrative and of benefit to shareholder value.

The sad thing is the time lost, yet again.

[superg1] 06/6/2015 14:02

Conflicts

(1) Any information that is furnished to the board or the board's staff or that is obtained by either of them is a matter of public record and open to public use. However, any information unique to the owner or operator that would, if disclosed, reveal methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets must be maintained as confidential if so determined by the board. - See more at: hxxp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/mtcode/82/11/1/82-11-117#sthash.UjDcLnAx.dpuf

Then include well data confidentiality that is allowed in most places for the first 12 months to protect assets.

So how does water rule that wants to know, who is using it, where, when and exactly how much is going to be used fit with confidentiality.

It's probably that point that caused the bureau to ask for less detail from IOF as they make LOIs public.

So imo on what I've read so far, a judicial review will sort this current clash of rules/laws out.

The easy answer is to slot oil related demand under water reservations not permits. Water reservations cover an future use for anticipated demand and are not subject to detail as mentioned for LOIs.

Something has to be done or Montana is going to lose a lot of oil revenue in the future, if this HE has set the way forward.

[spike_1] 06/6/2015 13:52

Well done SG I'm impressed! Possible light at the end of the tunnel.

[superg1] 06/6/2015 13:50

Bobby I think they already have a plant in Montana working off cold water, perhaps different to iosorb.

The simple answer would be yes, the point of extraction and lease etc are done. They could in theory do a US rights swap and move the point of extraction to the location.

I'm not sure they will need to go that route as the HE decision looks like it's open to a decent challenge.

How can he as A HE take away the right of discretion of the bureau which was set in the Supreme court.

At the end of the day we have some old rules that don't fit for this new use, and something will have to change of they want the industry to continue in Montana.

The bureau had clearly been using discretion.

Now we have a water rule that conflicts with oil rules/laws on declarations
Like many others I think it's the sheer size of the permit that has had them on the defence, along with Ames having them over previously.

[superg1] 06/6/2015 12:57

Jeez

Why keep going on about a lagal team lacking or the company lacking on a left field event.

The bureau set out a criteria for which they issue permits, and have issued such permits on that basis.

Generally in law when a precedent is set it's followed. In the past their have been some completely outrageous cases where emergency action has been taken to overturn such matters. They appear on the news from time to time.

This is first time that this type of case has ever appeared before a hearing examiner on that topic.

One HE awarded it saying the beneficial use criteria was met, one didn't.

The first one worked off the general precedent already set.

EG

Furthermore, the letters of intent do not account for the full 3622 acre-feet per year requested in the application.

The bureau only require 50% to be covered, but this HE had randomly decided that is not allowed.

Perhaps he forgot he listed this previous court decision in another part of the order.

The determination of whether an application has satisfied the § 85-2-311, MCA criteria is committed to the discretion of the Department. Bostwick Properties, Inc. v. Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation.


'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'


Another comment

'This Hearing Examiner finds that the letters of intent are speculative in that they merely reflect the intent to enter a contract for water at some future date if the parties can reach agreeable terms.'

No S Sherlock that's the only way you can proceed as contracts are illegal pre issuing of a permit.


'Furthermore, the letters of intent do not account for the full 3622 acre-feet per year requested in the application.'

They don't have too Mr HE, note the bureau asks for 50% of the need and as in case law previously.

'The determination of whether an application has satisfied the § 85-2-311, MCA criteria is committed to the discretion of the Department.'

Have any of you read the judicial revues he refers to. One is about a 'loophole' created by the bureau. It's all to do with not requiring a permit for low level extraction. So some smart lot decided to do loads of different wells staying under the permit needed amount. What it meant was that they could remove up to 10,000 acre feet by doing that without ever requiring a permit.

I can't quite see what any of that has to do with beneficial use and I can't see it mentioned but he quotes that case ??? I'll have to do some more reading on that one.

For the other one I can find anything water related yet, just a mortgage court case.

[bobbyshilling] 06/6/2015 12:12

roundup 6 Jun'15 - 11:19 - 33330 of 33332 1 0

Carlisle was able to put his finger on the area which was not sufficiently strong to satisfy the scrutiny of the law. How could our legal team be so inept as not to spot the weakness in our case.
They kept reassuring us of their confidence a decision would be made in our favour. I hope we can get a better legal team for the JR.


roundup, that is exactly the point I was going to make. Mr. Carlisle spent some time doing his homework, and either on his own or with assistance was able to pinpoint the area where his objection could be upheld. That is why IOF employ legal experts - to sift through the legal jargon and make our case water tight (excuse the pun). I wonder if they work on 'no win, no fee?'


SG, Even if IOF lose the appeal, if it gets to that stage, can they still go ahead and build the depot to extract water which they put into the Fresno, if we are downstream, using the rights swap and change of use arrangement we have in place? Would take some setting up I know, but IO1 could be positioned to allow that maybe? Would give us 30,000bpd at full capacity, not too bothered about low ppm iodine in this case.

[festario] 06/6/2015 11:38

Ha ha Microcline.A good idea, but I wouldn't want GVC profits to take that hit, so we should approach a different bookie!

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/6/2015 11:31

'devote 100% effort to increasing substantially iodine production'

There lies the rub.

You, everyone here, and the company are ignoring an important economic factor - increased supply in a low price environment. If you pump even more supply into a depressed market the low prices you are getting now will fall even further.

The answer is simple, you must actually reduce production and manage costs until prices pick-up and then you gradually up production. It's not going to be pleasant reading but at least it gives you a slim chance of survival... the alternative doesn't.

[roundup] 06/6/2015 11:19

Now that naphar and others have cast more light on the nature of the problem which the HE had in deciding this case. It reflects badly on the efficiency of our legal term. Carlisle was able to put his finger on the area which was not sufficiently strong to satisfy the scrutiny of the law. How could our legal team be so inept as not to spot the weakness in our case.They kept reassuring us of their confidence a decision would be made in our favour. I hope we can get a better legal team for the JR.

[microcline] 06/6/2015 11:07

Forget joint ventures, share placement, etc. etc.

I suggest Festario convince IOF place a bet of $2000 with odds of 1000/1 with GVC of NEVER obtaining a water permit within 2 years coupled with good ole boy Carlisle obtaining even more.

WHEN IOF collect the winnings they spend the money on mobile plants.

Seriously, stuff the water permit and devote 100% effort to increasing substantially iodine production. Let’s take a hit with a share placing. First option to existing shareholders and not the city boys.

[superg1] 06/6/2015 10:51

Can I just point out something very important as an example.

They have been and continue to break the law in North Dakota and it's condoned by the water bureau and related authorities. If they didn't many oil companies would struggle for water there.

Water laws in ND state that irrigation permits can not be used for any other use than irrigation.

However when they didn't have enough water for fraccing, they brought in an emergency temporary policy that allows the use of irrigation water for fraccing.

It's technically illegal, but it's on-going