Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bobbyshilling] 09/6/2015 22:05

The HE had plenty of time to look at and ponder the 'evidence' in fact it went to the wire and it seems to me that if he really wanted iof to get this permit he could have used the ambiguous areas to just as equally rule in our favour - but that was not the case, despite the shortage of water for oil companies and the seemingly farcical award of some previous permits. I must admit, I am not entirely at ease as to why? I hope the BOD can throw more light on this at the AGM.
I don't feel at ease with the suggestion that iof were asking for a lot of water, etc. and he didn't want that responsibility - he must have known iof would take this to appeal - it's in the rns's that the company would follow this to the end, you can tell by the tone of them. He acted within the law maybe, but he could still have acted within the law in our favour, but did not.

[superg1] 09/6/2015 20:52

RB customers.

Virtually all of it went to China and India on a 60/40 split.

So India and China are the sectors affected by the demise of RB.

[superg1] 09/6/2015 20:42

Aha

It shows Acf Minera and Atacama minerals (Sirocco/RB)

2013 exports

AM $47.5 mill

ACF $111 mill. I know they do 2000 mt

Algorta $110 mill so that confirms they did sell about 2000mt in 2013.

2014

AM $62 mill

ACF $90 mill

Algorta $109 mill.

Using ACF (and Algorta media comments) as the guide then Algorta did 2,400 mt.

On a price comparison that means AM(RB) did about 1400 mt but their prices would be lower to get custom as we saw, so it was more like the 1600 mt.

ACF and Algorta are more or less the same set up so prices won't vary.

[superg1] 09/6/2015 20:19

Algorta Norte

I think I have found something that may help re how much production they have been on.

Post H1 2013 in a media comment they mentioned $56 mill of revenue.

Their comment

'In this period the company had revenues of US $ 56.2 million and an operating cost of US $ 38.8 million.'

they also said

'by the end of the first half and is expected to close 2013 with an output of around 3,000 tons of iodine and billing level close to the US $ 150 million.'

I have just found a web page showing Algorta exports. I don't know how accurate it is.

It shows an export value of $110 mill for 2013 which equates to about 2000mt for that year.

For 2014 they show export revenue of $109 mill. so that would mean about 2500 to 2800 depending on the price they sold it for.

Their plan and max was 4000mt but it's unlikely they have got there. Their current opex will be above the current iodine price. There were comments that they have been pulling back on production.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 09/6/2015 20:16

Let's be clear, for a firm who have repeatedly spun bad news as good at every single opportunity the tone of the finals was remarkably downbeat. You may wish to assume that's due to a welcome change of tack, coming clean for once?

Others of a more cynical view may wonder if they're finally saying things are bad, then things must be critical?

ps Graham's churning of posts seems somewhat at odds with events.

[superg1] 09/6/2015 20:00

Mik

If it helps by the time the AGM comes I think they may say more on that topic.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 09/6/2015 19:55

Bazzerp
9 Jun'15 - 16:29 - 33439 of 33442 6 0


I am betting on the bacon & thrown all my spare cash at IOF this week. I think there must be a good outcome on the water front - there are 2 in reality.

They have cleaned the financial decks with the latest results, & we appear to have a thriving business that has massive expansion potential for very little risk, & payback on any investment within a short timescale.

All we need is a partner or the water income.

=============================================

I'm not sure which is the most astonishing, the post or the six thumbs up?

[mikkydhu] 09/6/2015 19:39

Thanks sg.

[superg1] 09/6/2015 19:37

ammons

I can't find any reference to support that line you put in

'The HE is saying that IOF will not be able to sell the water and has given detailed reasons for the finding.'

What he actually said was

21. This Hearing Examiner finds that there will be an ongoing need for water in the oilfield and service area for the proposed permit. Once Atlantis has built infrastructure, it will be capable of providing water for this need. The testimony of Forest Dorn and Scott Formolo, in conjunction with Applicant’s Exhibits 3-8, indicates that Atlantis could theoretically market 3,622 acre-feet per year to the oilfield.

The HEs decision is based on the rules on beneficial use and the proof. He wants firm contractual agreements and details of exactly how much water is going to each individual buyer.

This is what it is all about nothing else really matters.

46. This Hearing Examiner recognizes that as a matter of practice, the Department has accepted less than firm contractual commitments for the full volume of water requested at the permitting stage as evidence of bona fide intent to appropriate if the applicant could provide letters of intent to buy water for an amount of at least 50% of the volume sought. (See Applicant’s Show Cause Exhibit #4.) The hearing examiner’s decision in the present case is a
departure from that past practice.

Prior to Carlisle’s objection, it does not appear that the Department’s practice was subject to challenge or objection.

, this Hearing Examiner concludes that despite DNRC’s practice in past marketing permit decisions and its resultant reliance upon “letters of intent,” Montana law requires an applicant to include “each firm contractual agreement for the specified amount of water for each person using the water” and to prove, with precision, the amount of water that will actually be used.

What the HE has effectively said is that the bureau has issued all prior permits against what the law states and has said their 50% rule is not valid.

He has then applied that to the IOF permit. So a legal challenge against the other permits awarded should mean they are rescinded.

He has opened up a can or worms, one which could be very damaging for the Montana economy.

Mik

re

What authority would be needed to overturn the HE's ruling?
Can Montana DNRC simply decide to do so?

I understand it won't necessarily need a judicial review and can be overturned.

[madchick] 09/6/2015 18:18

I can tell that I shouldn't really be in the business world.

I feel a bit apprehensive about IOF going in all guns blazing and threatening the DNRC. I'm scared it could backfire. I'd rather a quiet approach, talking, if possible, with the HE (sorry, I should know, but is the HE independent of DNRC?) and/or DNRC for a mutual agreement.

It was suggested over on LSE that maybe IOF should have had more communications before the hearing date, just to check that no information was required etc. Not that this takes anything away from the fact that the decision was very unfair.

But interesting posts sg, and it would be great if they could get the decision overturned without going via a judicial review (assuming that would be faster, which you never know!).

[bazzerp] 09/6/2015 16:29

I am betting on the bacon & thrown all my spare cash at IOF this week. I think there must be a good outcome on the water front - there are 2 in reality.

They have cleaned the financial decks with the latest results, & we appear to have a thriving business that has massive expansion potential for very little risk, & payback on any investment within a short timescale.

All we need is a partner or the water income.

[woodpeckers] 09/6/2015 15:19

Not sure you're right there ammons. SG has shown that slickwater fracking is being used more and that requires considerably more water than conventional fracking.

[uppompeii] 09/6/2015 15:04

I'd wait for the "strategic review" rogerbridge...

[rogerbridge] 09/6/2015 14:36

Never make a snap decision and I am pleased that I have not sold any and in fact after a lot of weighing matters up I am now fairly optimistic. In future weeks I think that the water laws will be amended or IOF permit granted. I can not see any other way around to the mess the state has gotten it's self into and the threat to it's oil industry. As I have said before, these oil company need to make representations. Iodine price should firm up and if IOF do their bit on production and cutting costs, it looks promising for the future. Now do I raid the bank and buy more or wait for some confirmation?

[ammons] 09/6/2015 13:58

I think the reason why the permit was not awarded is straight forward enough. Discretion has not been used in our favour because the economics of the water supply industry are quite different now to what they were when the previous permits were awarded. If fracking had been going gangbusters now as it was when poo was $100 plus then it is likely IMO that we would have had discretion excerised in our favour. I would sooner not have the permit than get it and spend money on depots for water that cannot be sold. The HE is saying that IOF will not be able to sell the water and has given detailed reasons for the finding.

The AGM should be very interesting.

[superg1] 09/6/2015 12:46

The LOI letters of Carlisle

If you want to read them they are in this link from page 85 on.

As you will see they are purely speculative which the recent HE said isn't allowed thus Carlisle's permit should never have been issued.

Furthermore in recent times (end of 2014) one of his LOI letter businesses went bust. Never fear Carlisle has other potential buyers who in his words "hopefully" will buy water. If that isn't speculation then what is?




If anybody wants to check the other 18 or so permits and show me where any one of them gives details of exact amounts to be used where and by whom then happy hunting, you won't find such detail.

[roundup] 09/6/2015 12:26

G7 like to talk and to have headlines in the media. Rarely does anything come of these headlines.There is as much chance of phasing out oil production over the next 25 years as there is of phasing out car production.

[superg1] 09/6/2015 12:21

Still here didn't sell one and won't.

I can't ignore the iodine prospect which is potentially significantly enhanced by the Chile problems.

I don't have to guess what happens to the iodine price is a shortage, and this low price is known, and admitted, to be a strategic plan by SQM.

As for the water permit, call me nuts but I think they will get it. The reasons for that have been explained in great detail over many months.

Carlisle did well he may find his permit is rescinded before long. I did warn about the own goal he could score by hanging out his dirty washing.

[woolybanana] 09/6/2015 12:20

What is being overlooked is the potential for disruption in Middle Eastern oil supplies; There are now bombs going off in Saudi, planted by IS or others, designed to upset either the Sunni or the Shia elements of the population. It only takes one to go off in a refinery or a ship in the Persian Gulf, or even for the Shia to hit a ship off Aden and markets will go crazy, so it may be that the slowdown in US production is very short term and that water will be in greater demand than ever, and new opportunities will be created for IOF.

[mikkydhu] 09/6/2015 12:18

What authority would be needed to overturn the HE's ruling?
Can Montana DNRC simply decide to do so?

[1madmarky] 09/6/2015 12:09

Fresh - phasing out oil over the next 25 years. About the lifetime of the bakken region. Would make sense to ensure energy independence

[che7win] 09/6/2015 11:43

roundup,
they are pursuing it because they believe they will get the water -see the last sentence in RNS.
Hopefully, common sense will prevail.

Meanwhile share price bargain is fast disappearing...beautiful :-)

[rhwillcoll] 09/6/2015 11:20

Confucius he say:

"He who does not go after the pigs will not bring home the bacon"

[superg1] 09/6/2015 11:17

od

I think there is no need.

Behind the scenes it's thought that an iodine price rise will kick in soon.

Inventories have delayed the inevitable and end users don't have the gumption or interest to note what has been going on.

At best they go on what the majors say and as we have proven much of it is complete BS to assist a private 'war'.

SQM have been here before.

When troubles hit in 2011 they were sat on a pile of inventory and let the price soar cashing in.

They don't have such an inventory this time, but the Cosayach production surge (water theft) and RB inventory build (H2 2013) left the market with supply which has spilled into 2015.

SQM had dumped their inventory on the high prices. As for the Cosayach and RB surplus the price taken down to kill off their cash-flow.

In theory the iodine price won't creep up, when it goes it should be a sharp correction.