Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[roundup] 08/6/2015 10:43

Well if they insist on handing out shares for buttons, well I can't resist. I have bought some more.

[roundup] 08/6/2015 10:28

Superg 1 iodine is what we want to hear about now; were sick of water.

[superg1] 08/6/2015 10:04

Fest

You are right it has dominated things and has had the gearing issue too re SBs.

I wouldn't say it's over though, just briefly parked for now as it shouldn't take long before IOF know for sure what they are going to do next.

The talk will be all iodine soon, as the AGM isn't that far off.

[nashwan123] 08/6/2015 09:40

As I opined last week the Montana fiasco has the smell of the FIFA debacle. If world authorities continue like this then the very fabric of society is further undermined.Perhaps I along with others expect too much from one of the worlds' biggest so called democracies i.e the USA!

[che7win] 08/6/2015 09:36

Fest, Mini's come out in the summer time.

[che7win] 08/6/2015 09:35

Superg, Agreed, it's a strange way to facilitate jobs and investment in Montana.Roundup, 'Water under the bridge', I'm laughing my head off at that, we are a humorous bunch today :-)

[festario] 08/6/2015 09:32

We are going to need to move on from the water topic, because its over and has been a terrible distraction for too long.I still hold a large number (if not value) of shares here, and I want to know about mini's, and strategic iodine plans.

[cyberbub] 08/6/2015 09:24

Bounced twice off 23p on Friday and again this morning... hopefully support around thesr levels? Touch wood.

[superg1] 08/6/2015 09:14

Che

That's my point.

I have pointed out the impossibility of listing the information in an LOI that this HE wants. Impossible and conflicts with oil well rules and law.

So the bureau for oil related permits have been using discretion moving away from what rules actually say, otherwise they could never issue a permit to service a sector that funds much of the infrastructure through taxes.

The 50% rule is a great example that they would allow speculation

North Dakota have done exactly he same with some of their rules.

If you look at the rules, certain uses are exempt from such onerous LOIs, yet it would be easier to work out the required amount. EG a water supply to X amount of residents. The exception is listed. Those come under water reservations.

Under that section the madness continues.

Under water reservations you don't need LOIs it is based on speculation for future use ???. AND (this is where the nutty bit comes in), such holders can after a request sell some of their allocation to the oil industry.

Imo it does need a Judicial review to sort it all out.

The laws and rules simply don't fit the oil industry, so something has to change or it will grind to a halt.

The bureau have been using discretion to keep things going.

[roundup] 08/6/2015 09:05

We're still reeling, I don't understand why. After all it was/is non-core, and I think we have a good chance of winning the JR. However, it is water under the bridge for this year, and Iof need to concentrate on getting maximum production from our five plants and expansion of the chemical plant. The permit would have been a big boost for us but we are well able to develop the business without water. So let's get on with the business of producing iodine.

[che7win] 08/6/2015 08:57

Window of opportunity closing here, those selling earlier now locked out as we recover.I'm really happy today :-)

[che7win] 08/6/2015 08:47

It's nuts ok, But surely the Montana authorities are sympathetic to our situation, the HE ruling kind of undermines the stance they have been taking.I wonder...they must work with us to find the way forward...IMHO.

[superg1] 08/6/2015 08:30

Naphar

In one line. The court decided the bureau has discretion over rules and decisions. That HE re 50% for LOIs said no you can't do that.

It's just an example of where he seems to have ignored what everyone else has done before and taken his own course.

That said I agree with him on the 50% rule and I mentioned it way back.

How can the bureau and rules say that you can not speculate for sales of water but allow 50% of the amount applied for pure speculation with no LOIs needed covering it.

There is no beneficial need proved.

Once again that point brings me back to the confidentiality rule. I think they have been using discretion due to the impossibility factor.

EG they won't award double the size of the required amount for irrigation in anticipation that you buy more land in the future.

There must be an internal policy somewhere as for oil use they have clearly used discretion over what the rules actually say.

[che7win] 08/6/2015 08:13

Morning all, What a lovely day :-).Good to see the stale Bulls exit, I bet they will be buying back in the 30s, onwards and upwards!

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 07/6/2015 23:09

naphar,

I'd be interested to see your updated production, profit/loss estimates for 2015 and 2016, if you still do those things?

[naphar] 07/6/2015 22:57

As far as I can see, this HE has not used the discretion apparently available to him, he is using his discretion in deciding not to use the discretion available to him, if that makes sense. I don't think that is the same as over ruling the court.

[superg1] 07/6/2015 10:14

The permit has been a big distraction.

One key answer I want on that topic is the Scott Formolo comment.

He states the bureau asked for less detail in the LOIs. I'm hoping that is either documented in a letter or email. In theory such documents should exist if the submitted comprehensive LOIs. They must exist if Scott is right.

The only reason I can think of for such a request is that the water bureau are defending breaking rules on the oil and gas side re confidentiality which they have to abide by.

When the water bureau archives awarded permits they include the letters of intent and the communications between staff and everyone else which the public have access to. That's why I know that no LOI for any like permit awarded has the detail the recent HE has said is mandatory.

He suggests mandatory but then it's a Montana rule, rules which a judicial review said the bureau have discretion over.

So if that HE is saying he is not allowing discretion (as in the 50% discretion they use) then you have a lower entity over-ruling the court.

I'm looking forward to the Judicial review.

[superg1] 07/6/2015 10:05

Monty

Some good points raised by you and a few where I think you have your ear to the ground.

To expand on some things you said.

We talk about what is the strategy but we know it to some extent as IOF have explained it.

1. They want to push as much production as they can through IC to add value.

2. If they get to the point of selling the raw product they don't want to be selling to a customer that may compete in the derivatives they do.

3. They have interest in raw product off-take agreements and want to link those agreements to builds, which (they said it) may involve the customer funding or help to fund the build of a plant to secure such supply.

Effectively what you have there is a supply opportunity for an end user who can with minimum outlay secure supplies of iodine without entering the Iodine production world, and more or less guarantee a long term supply.

Why jump and do that now with the iodine price at a false $30 per kg.

RB are done and what they had left is probably on it's last legs. Somebody was buying their 1600mt last year and it's not available now.

Good timing as winter is in play in Chile. Due to the cold iodine production drops as demonstrated by RB and explained by them.

I hear Bullmine have been relying on glacier melt-water having abandoned seawater on the price drop. It's sporadic due the the drought and such a supply will fall to nowt during the winter.

50mt and more per month should be the norm shortly and should mean below $20 opex. Add in a moved io1 to a higher ppm site and opex will fall some more.

[spike_1] 07/6/2015 08:41

Still in according to shareholders list.

[makday] 07/6/2015 08:12

Is Mr Big still in IOF or has he scappered?

[monty panesar] 07/6/2015 08:12

Fwiw I hear GMP revamped their figures last week and looking for profits of >3m for this and >8m next with price target of 50p. The 2015 figure is based on 500mt of production which they should be able to do based on q1 production figures.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/6/2015 22:03

'Yesterday's drop was one caused by sentiment rather than anything to do with the underlying iodine business.'

You may think that, I don't. The fact the stock didn't fall to 20p on the shockingly bad results was because many thought, and bet, that the water news would be very good. Now you may wish to argue that the fall was simply due to water, but I suspect the market has at last also started to factor in those bad results, which I believe had been to a large extent... ignored.

[alphacharlie] 06/6/2015 20:42

Just having a quick catch-up during the footy half time. Thought I'd got the wrong thread when I saw posts 33349 & 33350 above . . . . Not good peeps!