Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[joeblogg2] 29/6/2015 15:18

Super. when do you think we will here anything on this or will they stretch this out like their normal process?

[uppompeii] 29/6/2015 14:39

Do you think they know something?

[nicksig] 29/6/2015 12:49

Looks like someone is picking up stock on the cheap

[bobbyshilling] 29/6/2015 11:42

Thanks SG. Am I correct in assuming that IOF do have a 'right' to take it to JR if all else fails, and this can't be blocked?

[kaos3] 29/6/2015 09:00

Rothschield for sure

[superg1] 29/6/2015 08:58

Cyber

Billions wiped off globally.

Good old Greece.

What a sod if you bought property there pre this inevitable fail by them. Now what's his name ermmmm :-)

What a world. Greece chaos, Tunisia tragedy, and the top read BBC story is about the last episode of Top gear.

[cyberbub] 29/6/2015 08:52

Sigh... £3M wiped off the market cap for £9k worth of trades...

[nashwan123] 29/6/2015 08:25

As I said when the water permit failed the decision making had a whiff of FIFA about it. The saga looks to drag on with IOF as it is with Blatter, who is still sitting in the top chair, despite announcing his intention to resign.I'm convinced the Montana water authority will find plenty of wiggle room to further delay the issuing of a water permit to IOF.Accountability for those in authority is still missing in the modern age.

[woodpeckers] 29/6/2015 08:17

superg1
29 Jun'15 - 08:14 - 34262 of 34262 0 0

Booby

lol, nice one SG!

[superg1] 28/6/2015 20:58

I'm not sure he can object but I guess he could go for a JR, but that would show his permit to be illegally awarded.

The rock is a peeved off Mr Carlisle who may have the circumstances of his own permit explained. The hard place is potentially 100's of millions of lost oil revenue depending on what a JR concludes.

We'll just have to wait and see. There have been a few options suggested that may be in play.

There must be options as there is requirement to work with the bureau before a JR request is allowed.

So within about 10 to 14 days we should know something. Perhaps earlier if a course of action has been agreed, or is about to be agreed with the bureau.

I don't know if anyone has direct experience, but even innocent looking JRs whichever country you are in can have a huge impact on current and future cases. Most only come to light when a daft decision is made.

We can't argue with this HE he has stuck his neck at and followed the letter of the law. However there may be internal bureau policies or agreements that he is unaware of.

The previous HE took the other awarded permits as setting a precedent.

[bobbyshilling] 28/6/2015 16:45

I suspect that if the permit decision is overturned early, then Mr Carlisle will object; then what? So a JR looks more likely, so that the process is legal, but that might cause certain things to hit the fan. Seems like the water bureau may find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

I hope this doesn't drag on for months again, but IOF have got to do everything they can to get the permit awarded.

[superg1] 28/6/2015 14:50

Where IOF want to take water out, through the year, depending on the season there is 8000 to 11000 cubic feet per second physically available.

Legally available 2600 cfs to 5700 cfs. That is the cut off figure where they consider they can issue no more rights.

So after over 100 years of awarded rights where are they in relation to that.

For 5 months of the year (winter and either side) the use is 4 CFS when there is 5700 cfs available.

April to October 44 cfs, the irrigation time with 2,600 cfs available.

There is room for another 500 plus IOF sized permits before the bureau decide to close the basin to new applications. Over 100 years and only 1.7% of the legally available water has been claimed (lowest levels, highest use months). It's .15% in the winter. It's jumps from 1.7% to 1.88% including IOF in the summer.

Poor water bureau it only leaves 98.12% left. Land isn't going to appear out of the blue, Montana has long been an agriculture state.

It's not big, it's just our lack of understanding of the US and the figures out there.

US golf courses use 43 billion barrels of water per year just for the greens, 5.5 million acre feet. They use more in 1 day more than the Bakken does in a year.

That's still only 20% of lake Sakakawea (it's big).

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 28/6/2015 14:15

serratia,
Let me guess, three paid members voted you down because you are brown-nosing Graham? That wouldn't be enough for me though, I would need a better reason. Maybe saying this will increase profits before it has even made any? That's four.

[superg1] 28/6/2015 14:12

The battle that about sums it up.

A comment about the army corps

“They said they own the property around it and wouldn’t give any permits to cross their land and access that water until they did a surplus water study, which would take seven years.

As from this comment you can see it's all anal bureaucracy.

IOF permit looks big but in reality compared to the water available it's not.

“You’ve got the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea cutting right through the dead center of the Bakken mature field. There are 24.3 million acre feet of water in that Missouri River system right now stored. We used 12,000 acre feet in 2012 for fracking. That’s a quarter of an inch off that cotton-pickin’ lake.”

It you want to take the dog for a stroll around the lake it's about a 400 mile trip.

[superg1] 28/6/2015 13:58

Why too much Mad.

The rules are there, under 4000 acre feet doesn't trigger other factors. The option to apply for much higher is there for anyone to apply for.

One in ND I believe is in the 12000 acre feet range. They can't use it though due to it's location as the army corps have claimed 'ownership' of all but 10 miles of the Missouri river.

That is what the hearing examiner meant in the Ames case.

On paper ND has plenty of water available in awarded permits. The fact much of it can't be extracted and sold due to 'administrative reasons' (army corp claimed ownership) isn't his problem.

That HE also intimated that they needed to award more permits in Montana in areas where it's legally available as adjacent areas don't have such resources available and are now 'water short'

[freshvoicem] 28/6/2015 12:34

Follows on from Rodolfo Baier, previous day.
Present Government seems quite involved, thought SQM was more linked to opposition parties

[freshvoicem] 28/6/2015 12:31

Another casualty

Sule
After The Clinic Online published last night background that would link the legislative adviser to the Ministry of Mining, Alejandro Sule, in Soquimich case, the former deputy requested a meeting with the minister, Dawn Williams, which was scheduled for this afternoon where He puts his resignation to, a fact that had been recorded in this way before the appointment was made, according to which targeted the distribution sources.

"This morning I put my resignation to, I took this decision not to interfere with the work done by the Ministry of Mining and the government, I want to thank the opportunity and confidence they gave me this portfolio in which I play over the last six months as legislative counsel, I worked with loyalty and professionalism to this government, "the former deputy said in a press point

Before this, this means that the page cited transparency in the Ministry of Mining, Sule listed as legislative counsel to fees until June 30th monthly salary of $ 3.5 million. Sources of this portfolio ensure that the ombudsman is, with the chief minister gabinente of Aurora Williams, Adolfo Galindo, one of the closest to the secretary of state and the most radical in a distribution hierarchy that has always belonged to this party .

Sule, a former congressman who chaired the Committee on Mining, is now the second vice president of the Radicals and on Monday his name in the generated voltage (CEN) National Executive Committee of the Radical Party. Sources for this match assure The Clinic Online Undersecretary given Rodolfo Baier he revealed in this instance that the ballot by 6 million SQM during 2013, and that led him to resign, turned it on request Sule to justify expenses campaign. The same would have said another ombudsman of the party, Carlos Descalzi, and the case went to the Supreme Court radical.

[superg1] 28/6/2015 09:22

Jas

Why haven't they bought anything else either.

Institutions have been dumping small caps for some time. Most companies no matter who they are have been trying to sort out in house troubles and cutting costs.

I heard recently the MM Lib C has been dumping everything in the AIM. I don't know if that is true.

The big guns don't buy small companies that have prospects, they buy small companies that have been through grinder, spent all the cash, and have come out the other side with a viable business with visible growth, with much or all of the risk now gone.

Or on the flip side a material risk to their sector, so they buy them and bin them, Sqm are an example of that. However they are a tad distracted by other matters at the moment but definitely have eyes for Cosayach and perhaps the RB mine to stop others producing.

In the case of iof they have proven tech and 5 sites, with over 100 sites available by means of acquired leases and contracts just in OK it seems.

[spike_1] 28/6/2015 09:11

Well I'm still in and have been buying more. The 'spending spree' and relatively poor siting of some plants needs to be seen in the context of iodine prices two years ago. Did anybody then expect the price to be were it is today - no. The drop in IOF's share price has much more to do with the price of iodine than the very poor (inexperienced) management.

Everyone says the need for iodine is expanding every year, that being the case, even a small rise in iodine price will help IOF and put it in a position where it can easily expand production.

We are at the very early stage of IOF moving from 'just' being a derivatives manufacturer, to also selling raw iodine. A lot of iodine is sold on contracts, and we have yet to see where that leads in terms of continued availability.

IOF have said that some RB customers have already been making enquiries, and it is believed by many that IOF are about to enter into a contractual arrangement to sell a sizeable amount on an ongoing basis - hence them saying they have been building up an inventory which they now say is just about at the minimum level required to enable such a contract.

They also say that looking ahead they expect production to be more stable (and have proved that over the last 3 month), and they expect to increase it further (equivalent to 'half an additional plant'), without any capital expenditure.

Unless the iodine price starts falling again (it has been roughly stable now for about 6 months), IOF should begin the road back up.

Personally I am convinced they will get the water permit (and in time further permits). This should underpin IOF's viability short term and longer term provide significant and increasing revenue and profit.

In a couple of weeks or so we should get the last quarter's iodine production figures, that will give us a good idea of where we are now.

Best wishes - Mike

[superg1] 28/6/2015 08:33

Serratia

Re

'Water - A surprise result, the regulators don't want a judicial review for reasons explained.'

It seems from details around that is true. It is aid the state of Montana does not want a judicial review due to the potential consequences on the technically illegal permits in existence. IOF would challenge all those awarded permits in the court.

Feedback from the DRNC was expected a week ago but hasn't happened yet but is expected. The feedback may include a course of action where there is no need for a review.

That's not unusual or BS that's the way it works.

From the final order

A Final Order may be appealed by a party who has exhausted all administrative remedies before the Department in accordance with the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (Title 2, Chapter 4, Mont. Code Ann.)

The 30 days is up at the end of this week 3rd July. So they may get feedback or just go for the JR, or both to keep the JR in play. Unless of course any feedback gives an extension re JR options.

Logic suggests the bureau would need to give feedback before Friday.

But one thing intrigues me. You can appeal and have a Judicial review. If we assumed the bureau can't reverse the decision, then why are there administrative remedies available. It must mean that options are available besides a JR.

IOF's argument and rightly so, is that they have been denied the permit when all before them got theirs and against the rules that the HE quoted in the final order. That HE has also more or less declared some bureau policy as illegal, yet a supreme court case gave the bureau discretion.

Hence the refusal of the permit is no minor incident, it's the biggest shake up they are likely to face in their history.

The bureau at this time demand 50% of the requested amount in LOIs. That directly goes against the speculation laws the HE is spot on. However they have been issuing permits on that basis.

Those permits are signed by bureau bosses. They have authorised permits against the law. Have they used their discretion because the rules don't fit.

They will get questioned, so do they say, sorry we all turned into muppets and completely forgot the rules for 18 water permits, we got our memory back for any other type of permit in between those. The other option is, the rules don't fit so we had to use our discretion as detailed and supported in the supreme court.

No farmer has ever been given extra water because he might get some more cows or buy some more land.

Furthermore there was a rumour around pre all this that in the future the bureau will demand LOIs to a level of 3 times the water applied for.

That also is against the law.

What they have is an industry demand that doesn't fit their current rules. For years they have relied on X number of cows and X number of acres = X amount of water.

Along came municipal supplies for population expansion and future use. The rules didn't fit so they included some exclusions for them, and called it a water reservation. That steps around the rules.

For oil and the boom they haven't changed the rules, they have just ignored them.

Until now of course and something will have to be done, rules changed, or all permits cancelled. 100's of millions of lost revenue to the state rests on the latter.

So when the rumour is they don't want a judicial review because of the potential outcome, I think there is a fair chance it's true.