Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 12/6/2015 07:21

Che

I think earlier as the AGM is probably the last day. Think of previous years.

If they want to talk openly about anything pre AGM then they will probably need to do an rns. They will want to chat, so it's down to the nomad really re the obligation or not to release it as news.

I hear the odd bit and I think some will be surprised at opex at certain levels of production. Stick io1 in a good place and that drops.

I think Monty hears the odd bit or two.

[cyberbub] 12/6/2015 07:17

Superg, with respect you said a single large leveraged holder took us down from 40p to 30p... are you claiming the same has happened from 30p to 20p??

[cyberbub] 12/6/2015 07:15

Who is going to the AGM? Have we got a list of questions for them?I think anyone attending needs to not let the BOD off the hook until we have crystal clarity on (a) WTF happened on the water permit and what their assessment of the judicial appeal is, and (b) the position on the large expenses which led to a large loss, what are they, are they recurring, why were they a surprise?Thanks to anyone going for representing us PIs.

[che7win] 12/6/2015 07:05

That along with some news next week around AGM time, 50% bounce from here?

[superg1] 12/6/2015 07:02

Btw

It's thought one PI seller is forced having over-geared for a decent number of IOF shares. So just watching or when they are done.

[superg1] 12/6/2015 06:58

So does the bureau want a judicial review.? No

Does the senator want one with all his spending plans No.

Does IOF want one? Yes

Will there be one? I doubt it, for the reasons mentioned. There are other options.

I suspect there will be an update re the way forward soon.

Cyber re

'3 weeks until we get the quarterly production report, and we find out!'

I think we will find out next week as IOF are over here, and they will need to able to talk about current production and the current situation on the permit. So I wouldn't be surprised to see an update prior to then.

If the nomad deems no need for news then we'll hear very early next week how production is going and water comments no doubt.

[superg1] 12/6/2015 06:48

Fresh

That HE that took the Ames case is the one that allowed such LOIs for Montana.

The case before him was 100k acre feet going into ND which he refused, and he quotes they need it in Montana due to some areas being water short.

In general to all. As I have pointed out the LOIs are shockingly poor for many permits with some obviously fraudulent. I'm sure in a judicial review that would come out as those letters are the evidence on which the permits were awarded.

A judge with interest in water law would be horrified in what the bureau awarded.

Note, the 2 LOIs that I said were probably fraudulent by Ames came up in that hearing. Since the depot was built he has not sold 1 gallon to either, AND sold a very small amount to others he is supposed to be 'contracted' with.

He actually sold water to 50 different customers and I don't believe he has contracts with them which is a requirement.

I suspect the bureau post hearing will have sent a letter asking for copies of the 50 contracts. They have done so on other permits.

Ames on occasions sent in an LOI from his own other business Agri industries.

Rent an LOI aka wildcat trucking always seem to give an LOI to Ames (and others), Their 'contracts' would mean they would need about 100 trucks working 7 days a week. From details they have 12. The LOIs are false.

A scam has been going on for some time, and a judicial review would highlight that, and probably end up with some bureau folk getting the boot.

[superg1] 12/6/2015 06:36

So on your other question

This is a new one on me.

"That could create water supply chaos overnight, and wells shutting down as they need water daily to flush out the salt build up."

Now you can see why, the well flows would grind to a halt and pumps would fail.


If you look elsewhere Montana has a big need for cash fro it's 'failing infrastructure'. The senators have recently had bills passed re that it's listed.

It was in an article yesterday and has been in news before.

So when I say they need the cash from Oil to cover their plans it's not speculation, now they want to take out loans and they know the oil revenue will cover it.

So back to the judicial review, a decision that could declare all related permits illegally awarded would send Montana into meltdown re oil production and revenue from that

Btw I didn't know water commissioners existed, the only time I heard about those was since the rns, they have powers, as do others.

I think there is significant interest in the right places in Montana re that decision, as they appreciate the potential consequences of a judicial review.

[mortie1] 12/6/2015 06:33

I don't think it's daily and not as significant as maybe quoted.

"3.2 MAINTENANCE WATER
A recent article in National Geographic highlighted a new source of water consumption
for wells that appears to be unique to the Bakken wells, or at least much more significant for the
Bakken than for other shale plays (Kiger, 2013). The high salinity of the formation water within
the basin (see Produced Water Management section) necessitates periodic flushing of wells to
eliminate salt buildup within the well bore, which can negatively impact production rates. While
little has been published about this process, Kiger (2013) referenced NDDMR estimates that
seem to show that the water volumes required can be fairly significant over the lifetime of the
well—on the order of 400–600 gallons/day (Helms, 2013). At this point in time, it is not well
understood how this estimate was generated and what it implies in terms of frequency and
volume of fluid required for flushing individual wells. When more data is obtained, it may be
appropriate and significant to incorporate maintenance water volumes into further lifecycle water
analyses of the Bakken play. After reaching out to industry contacts, one major producer in the
Bakken (that has asked not to be named) stated that although they do require water for
maintenance activities, their wells currently require significantly less water than estimated in
Kiger (2013). The producer also stated that the water used for such activities is often brackish
and thus is less likely to strain fresh water resources. Furthermore, a clear and consistent
definition of “maintenance water” is needed. "

the link

[superg1] 12/6/2015 06:28

Mortie

If you look up Carlisle's objection he mentions high salt and that is true.

It may be the Ames order but somewhere one of them lists the amount needed. There was also that 1100 well bakken survey etc.

The salt content of produced water is high this builds up in the well so they use fresh water daily to flush it out, otherwise flows would be affected and equipment damaged.

I just typed that having not read your link. Your link confirms as I have said before 5000 barrels per year per well.

That link also answers your own question

'Flushing salt out of what exactly?'

In the link

Flushing salt out of what exactly?

"As they're producing the oil, they're also bringing up that water," Suggs said. "The salt precipitates in the well bore. It can restrict the flow of oil, and cause the pumping equipment to have problems as well."

That salt has to be flushed out by pumping fresh water down into the well bore, and then sucking it back up through the same tubing normally used for oil. "The salt basically dissolves in the water, the way a spoonful of table salt would in a glass of water," Suggs said.

[mortie1] 12/6/2015 00:40

Superg,

This is a new one on me.

"That could create water supply chaos overnight, and wells shutting down as they need water daily to flush out the salt build up."

Flushing salt out of what exactly?

Asking questions can appear unfriendly. Don't mean to be, just never came across this before.

Answered my own question with this link:

[senden11] 12/6/2015 00:07

You do that pp but don't bet your house on it closing well. Still several years left on my five year plan and don't intend to release any of my shares to the doom-mongers just yet.

[piripiri2] 11/6/2015 23:45

They will run out of money keeping my short open

[uppompeii] 11/6/2015 23:24

Well, now water is out of the way I guess they had a Plan B on the Strategic Review?

[freshvoicem] 11/6/2015 23:19

If we get the update in 3 weeks it will be superb, 4 weeks average, later than that........
'Er, Houston we have a problem'

[napoleon 14th] 11/6/2015 22:46

Sorry guys, share price still a dog, tho'.

[cyberbub] 11/6/2015 22:38

3 weeks until we get the quarterly production report, and we find out!We have $7M in the bank and I just wish that our management would pull their fingers out, relocate IO1, and start building a couple of mobiles! We still have 2 years until our loans come due.... though in any case I am not expecting any huge problem to roll them over, *as long as* we have become sustainably cashflow-positive by then...GLA

[freshvoicem] 11/6/2015 21:33

I will be pleased if we just meet our promises.

[che7win] 11/6/2015 21:23

Monty/Cyber,
Exactly, we are very, very geared.

--Any rise in iodine is pure profit.
--You have highlighted extra production from existing plants, again there is a gearing effect.

So....if we hear that production has increased from first half or iodine price is rising, then the share price will gear up exponentially.

I'm glad someone else can see the gearing effect on the business and as a result, the gearing effect on the share price.


Monty Panesar 11 Jun'15 - 20:41 - 33526 of 33528 0 0

Yes Cyber. It is very geared.Once they get to 45-50t per month then it makes a big difference.

[freshvoicem] 11/6/2015 21:15

The point I was making was that he didn't challenge their original in state grant.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/6/2015 21:09

There should be a technical bounce approaching fast from that great day a couple of years ago, 20.50 if my memory serves me well? The circumstances then were chaotic and such fun, sadly the picture today is anything but.

But technical is technical, so expect a wee bounce soon...

[superg1] 11/6/2015 20:50

Fresh

Most of the LOis have very little info and nowhere near what IOF recorded in theirs.

In that case of Ames, the LOI was basis and hand a note written on it that they would only buy water if they needed it.

That line made him say it was therefore speculative as they as with permits you have to declare a need.

Montana rules say for out of state the beneficial use evidence must be of a higher nature, You can't get any higher than saying how much, where, and by whom.

That HE (I think it was Vogler) goes on to say that some areas in Montana are water short and such water would be needed.

Ames contested it was not feasible to convey water 100's of miles due to the costs. The HE said it has nothing to do with cost, just whether it is possible or not.

So that comment if you like ends the bureau's rule of thumb of only allowing a 100 mile radius service area under 'reasonable and believable'. In that regard it is a rule of thumb following an internal email exchange. That tells you the laws and rules need reviewing as there is nothing covering acceptable service areas.

[monty panesar] 11/6/2015 20:41

Yes Cyber. It is very geared.Once they get to 45-50t per month then it makes a big difference.

[freshvoicem] 11/6/2015 20:28

Interesting if you read the same HE view on Ames request to transport out of state, although that was denied, he seems to accept the original case for water in the state which doesn't seem any more secure than our application. Even the same HE is not consistent if I have understood it correctly.

[cyberbub] 11/6/2015 20:23

Monty yes, there is always a significant gearing effect.Not quite clear what the Iochem margin is but I would hope it was more than 10% personally.I have always stated also that a patented low-cost process (which has patents in Japan and Chile also) with 15 years to run on the patent, has to be worth a lot of money in itself, in the case where a predator was looking to pounce? Surely way in excess of 50p per share, to a cash-rich Japanese iodine consuming corporation say?Just my view, NAI