Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 11/6/2015 20:22

Put another way. They would have to retrospectively add in a law overruling the prior law and making sure it covered the dates when permits were first awarded about 4 years ago.

Then they would have to say from the date of the HE decision the law repealed is now repealed again going back to the former laws.

But that would be applied post the IOF application when other rules would have been in play.


Retrospective laws are normally passed to close up legal loopholes that appear. They aren't used for making illegal acts legal to convenience those that may have breached them.


'This word is usually applied to those acts of the legislature, which are made to operate upon some subject, contract or crime which existed before the passage of the acts, and they are therefore called retrospective laws. These laws are generally unjust and are, to a certain extent, forbidden by that article in the constitution of the United States, which prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws or laws impairing contracts.'

'Laws should never be considered as applying to cases which arose previously to their passage, unless the legislature have clearly declared such to be their intention.'

It's certainly not about making illegal acts, legal retrospectively.

So you can see Montana now has quite a headache sorting this out. The easy option is to change the rules for oil field water permits lowering the beneficial use evidence. That makes illegal depots legal and IOF's application awarded.

[superg1] 11/6/2015 20:10

Bobby

re

I can understand exactly where you are coming from SG, but what is stopping the legal system making the rule 'as from now' and not retrospective

Do you have any experience of the courts including the appeal courts direct or otherwise?

If they make a rule as of now for permits already issued then the rule would have to be that they don't have to comply with the rules in play at the time.

It's quite simple, based on what the rules say and what the HE backed up, is that they were all awarded illegally.

As mentioned before an in the HE's comment the water bureau have the 50% rule. IE you need 50% of the water you request backed up with letters of intent.

Well that makes the other 50% purely speculative which is absolutely forbidden. The water bureau are the experts and they allowed it, I say allowed they introduced it. It's obvious why as they realise applicants can't specify exactly how much they need.

They have used their discretion, as if they stuck to the law there wouldn't be any water for oil wells.

The bureau have clearly made some internal policy decisions and HE Vogler backed that up.

[monty panesar] 11/6/2015 19:49

Just to put the above into the context of H2 production rate at 32t per month with an OPEX of around $26 and a spot iodine price of $32+10% IC margin that would have meant a Operating profit of around 1.7m. Take off $3.4m of admin costs and you are looking at a loss of net loss of $1.7m. Then add on money spent on making alterations to plant and you can see start to understand what really happened.

[monty panesar] 11/6/2015 19:16

With last years results consigned to history I thought I would do some rough sums on Q1 figures we have:

Production of 127.9m tonnes and spot price of $30.

The assumptions I am making are admin and finance costs of $5.5mpa.(from GMP research), an OPEX cost of $23kg and a 10% margin at Iofina Chemicals.

This works out at at Operating Profit for Q1 of $1,279,000 and net loss of approx +- $100k over the period. That was based on only a 10% margin at IC.

What they need to do is get to 50t per month then they start making in the region $200-400k per month. The current weather in OK should be helping recovery rates.

The delay in water was a disappointment for sure but probably wouldn't have boosted the cash position until later this year.

[bobbyshilling] 11/6/2015 18:48

I can understand exactly where you are coming from SG, but what is stopping the legal system making the rule 'as from now' and not retrospective to other permits already in place, and letting those stand on the basis that it would cause too much disruption to the industry to change them.

[superg1] 11/6/2015 18:09

Bobby

Carlisle idly sitting by. His permit has effectively just been announced as awarded against the laws.

If IOF went to a Judicial review and the judge supported the HE then all water depot permits would have to be declared null and void.

Hence IOF have nothing to lose but everyone else does.

One HE went with the precedent et down by the issue of other permits, the other followed the rules.

One of those decisions will be deemed right. A judicial review would sort out which one.


A recognition of the issue at hand re meeting the needs of the rules is the most likely outcome. The legislative team said in their report that changes will be have to be made to meet new demands in the future.

Anyone that has ever been directly involved in such legal matters would.

When an appeal court makes a ruling it's for all not just a claimant.

Happens all the time in the UK, with on some occasions folks high up having to step in with emergency measures when a rogue decision is made.

[che7win] 11/6/2015 17:35

TPL still recovering and good progress being made with the update today.

Shareholders activism at it's best, we've ousted the leaches.

I'm well happy :-)

[che7win] 11/6/2015 17:08

superg,
my initial reaction to the water was that the HE had to give a reject if he was following the letter of the law which he is obligated to do.
That in turn puts all the awards in jeopardy.

You seem sure we will get the water permit...

However, the questions for future would be:
1. When would we get it?
2. Would it be for the original amount or only the firm LOI's?
3. What are our costs?
4. How would the JV partners view this?

[bobbyshilling] 11/6/2015 16:42

SG regarding your post 33503, that is very interesting if you are correct - (I hope you are), but why should a deal be struck and the permit decision changed in our favour when the HE knew from the tones of the rns's - which I am sure would have been read by him - that he could be certain IOF would take this to appeal if they lost. Also, I doubt that Mr. Carlisle is going to idly sit by if the decision is changed.

[superg1] 11/6/2015 16:35

Thanks Up I will look.

Fresh

No doubt quite a bit of gearing hit combined with T trades and those generally P'd off and leaving.

We'll get that permit, you'll see.

Iodine and the iodine chaos due to hit near term is where the interest is though as that will could feed the bottom line rapidly.

[uppompeii] 11/6/2015 16:27

SG - no, same field but INSP are not targeting the same market. FLOW are actually quite interesting, I first bought at 13p in Oct '13 and have traded up and down and now running free at 27p. It would p people off going into the energy supply co, boilers and back up batteries on here but take a look at the thread or website.

hxxp://flowgroup.uk.com/

[cyberbub] 11/6/2015 16:26

Looks like I was a bit hasty... sigh...

[freshvoicem] 11/6/2015 16:19

Well it seems to be hitting IOF price on the way!
More stop losses hit this PM

[superg1] 11/6/2015 15:33

Further word on SQM sounds like a truck load of manure is heading their way.

I look forward to the news on the topic.

[crosseyed] 11/6/2015 15:30

gadolinium,

My understanding is that you are rather more knowledgeable about chemical processes than most. As someone whose pinnacle was an O-level in Chemistry, though not too bad a grade, I wonder if you would indulge me regarding a query.

This relates to the use of the relative atomic masses (RAM) of elements making up a compound, specifically involving Iodine that IOChem might produce.

Take Methyl Iodide, H3CI. The RAMs are respectively H:1.008 (x 3), C:12.01, and I:126.9 giving a combined RAM of 141.9. Their respective proportions of total RAM would be H:0.021, C:.085, and I:0.894. So if 1kg of Iodine is used to manufacture the compound then the respective quantities would be H:0.0235kg and C:0.0951kg giving a total compound weight of 1.1186kg ? [corrected!]

If that is correct, would it then be reasonable, given estimates of the relative proportions of derivative products (as for example the percentages given in the in the header), to analyse their chemical formulae and thereby arrive at the relative weights of the separate elements? Thus, it would then be possible to make a rough estimate of the weight of finished derivates produced per mT of Iodine.

My first attempt suggests that 1 mT of Iodine produces 1.25 mT of finished products. That would be useful since IOF publish the shipped weight (though oddly in lbs - nothing like mixing units).

Thanks,
c

[superg1] 11/6/2015 14:53

UP

Is that tongue-in-cheek. I never know with you, isn't that what INSP do.

I've spotted one angle that could revolutionise sectors amounting to trillions never mind billions and millions.

That's what I like about the AIM, somewhere in amongst them is a future biggie.

[superg1] 11/6/2015 14:47

Pinged a few including SQM analysts and SQM with recent news and new fraud revelations.

The first reply so far is that there is suspected to be a lot more to come re SQM and fraud.

Not surprising really since the authorities raided them recently and made seizures.

It sounds like Cosayach they know of ways (illegal) to keep costs down.

[uppompeii] 11/6/2015 14:16

Cyber, I'm disappointed you didn't pop it into FLOW !

[cyberbub] 11/6/2015 14:09

I have just taken a small 15k share topup, my average is now down to 35p or so.Touch wood, good luck all etc

[cyberbub] 11/6/2015 14:04

A small dip leads to a wave of buying at these levels.Looks like maybe some of the last desperate T-traders buying for the water decision are being forced to.close at a heavy loss?NAI

[superg1] 11/6/2015 11:19

Are you sure about that one Bogg1e

I've read many articles like this one


Saudi Arabia says its strategy of squeezing high-cost rivals such as US shale producers is succeeding, as the world’s largest crude exporter seeks to reassert itself as the dominant force in the global oil market.

“There is no doubt about it, the price fall of the last several months has deterred investors away from expensive oil including US shale, deep offshore and heavy oils,” a Saudi official told the Financial Times in Riyadh, giving a rare insight into the kingdom’s thinking on oil strategy.


So next time they need help (if ever) will it end with 'Pretty Pleeeeaaaaassssseeee'

The whole US strategy was to try and distance itself from reliance on the Middle East. Just about every intervention has been to do with oil.

[superg1] 11/6/2015 11:06

I read one bogg1e and it was half the size of a final order.

However this is completely new ground for the sector as no like permit has ever been refused before.

I can't say too much but I don't expect a judicial review. IOF would be happy to do one but I doubt Montana would want it.

Such reviews have significant knock on effects then those that matter don't want them.

A judicial review could potentially end up with all current permits that supply the oil industry as illegal. That could create water supply chaos overnight, and wells shutting down as they need water daily to flush out the salt build up.

At the end of the day someone somewhere questioned payment protection insurance and we all know what happened next.

I can list a few with personal involvement where large companies have backed down quickly when threatened with such action. They know how much it costs them as judicial reviews open the floodgates potentially.

The impression I'm getting is that action post that permit decision has been very intense at high levels.

[bogg1e] 11/6/2015 10:54

sg, given that Saudi and the US are big buddies, it is to me obvious that the stated aim of the Saudi oil policy to raise output is not to damage the US oil and gas boom, but morr to inflict political/financial damage on Russia, so should a Kuwaiti event happen again, you can be sure that it will benefit the US and Saudi.

Anyhow do we know of any data relating to previous judicial hearing with the DNRC? Do we know the stages and durations of each stage, from lodging an appeal to receiving a hearing date? Sorry to have to ask others, decent internet access and download speeds are for me an issue atm. Cheers.

[superg1] 11/6/2015 10:31

If Saudi hit the same invasion issues as faced by neighbouring countries do you think it would affect the oil price.

The whole world pays attention to that so there is no need to look. Every news channel would be stuffed full of any major oil event.

BTW

Saudi are on record levels and opex 1 mill per day over their ceiling mainly down to Iraq and Saudi.

I do wonder if ever a Kuwaiti type event came again how helpful the US would be after the middle east has tried to force US production down.

[superg1] 11/6/2015 10:20

od

Serious question or sarcasm?

On the serious side yes, but not a lot there, they are on twitter too.

The various sources show that investors knew little about the Corfo issue, but that has been covered in news.

Investors and analysts are oblivious to the recent threat to their NV iodine mine.

I think I'll prod an analyst.

Kev you can always start your own thread, anyone can. This one is for all the info that comes up in the market.