Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[nashwan123] 14/8/2013 12:38

RSI well in oversold land and MACD nearly bottomed. Max another 5p off but upside unlimited IMHO.

[superg1] 14/8/2013 12:36

You'll have me talking yellow perch stocks at this rate.

As said, I have done a huge amount of research on the subject. It all started back in early 2011.

In surprise myself sometimes on some gem bits I forgot about while looking for other things.

For that discharge permit, IOF went to lawyers to sort it. those lawyers laughed and said it would be impossible, so IOF did it themselves and achieved the impossible.

Apparently in the water process planned, what would go into the Fresno is better than what you would drink out of your home tap.

If with the 3 forks boom that is , expands west into Montana, as recently mentioned, then Atlantis direct supply gets more interesting. A zero impact on water supplies.

Bob Shavers comment re demand doubling over 10 years came pre the USGS 3 forks news, which doubles the Bakken potential.

Continental who are the 3 forks leader, talk of figures much higher

[bogg1e] 14/8/2013 12:25

SG, thanks, thats a very comprehensive response. Adding it to the ever growing mass of notes!

[superg1] 14/8/2013 12:02

Boggle

ND and Montana want to embrace the boom, the US want self sufficiency on energy.

Take a look at the Eastern edge of the Bakken and the amount of water in lake Sakakawea.

IOF will extract from the Missouri not ground water. Note Bob Shaver says he expects over the next few years, as the expansion goes on, that rights could be fully appropriated.

I.E. no more new rights, so the Oil sector will have to make do with what they have.

It seems logical that if rights are fully appropriated, that water prices will go up.

No one else other than IOF that I can find has a rights swap deal with the US Fisheries or ever will do.

That is all down to luck, combined with hard work.

Atlantis is to the west of the Fresno reservoir, that is an area of scarce water and rare species. In 2003 a drought caused the decimation of various wildlife and took years to fix. Not just in the Fresno. the Missouri flows from there and hits an l large wildlife reserve called Bowdoin.

When the drought hit, the Bowdoin got hit too, and the USFW had nothing that could fix it.

Up pops IOF with an answer. IOF spent years sorting a discharge permit. They were to clean their produced water, which very usually has very few contaminants in it and pump it into the Fresno.

So the deal is from the USFW, we want the rights to your water should you produce and in return, down river where we have plenty of water, you can use it for your needs.

I lost count but I think the USFW have rights to about 100,000 acre feet in the Bakken area at a use level that is allowed to be upgraded to industrial use.

Since 2003 they have not had a local drought issue, but it's insurance for the future. Nothing needs to go into the Fresno to allow extraction downstream.

Extraction below the Bowdoin reserve is not an issue for the USFW.

Then there is another option.

In the fullness of time whoever owns has the Atlantis lease can up the discharge permit and discharge up to 500k bpd in to the Fresno area. That is it's daily storage capacity. Then they can take it out anywhere down stream.

Step 1 for IOF is the current application for rights in the normal way, while water is not fully appropriated.

Step 2 in the future could be to upgrade any of the various US rights to industrial use.

Step 3 if the demand is there would be to produce water from Atlantis, clean it, put it in the Fresno (pumping station and pipeline, already in place) and use the river system as a pipeline.


That's what most don't get. It's unique in many ways, and a hell of an asset for any area going through a boom with high water demands.

More recently just over the border, they talk of waterflooding the shales. That sounds like a lot of water to me.

So looking at all the oil services companies and water divisions looking to get heavy in that sector, which is the best option as an interesting acquisition.

I believe post permit, the JV IOF talk of may reappear under a better deal and maybe not with Hal, or someone will simply bid for IOF water.

[bogg1e] 14/8/2013 11:24

superg, forgive me for being slightly contrary, but water, especially in the US has become an increasingly taut political subject. I'm just wondering whether IOFs water permits for extracting from the Missouri or from the aquifer could become subject to political pressures, as agricultural, domestic and industrial needs(fracking in particular - as it both uses water and risks contaminating further water supplies) come to a head. Given that the US Govt (and with it big II's, hedge funds, banks, etc) have put a lot of political and media weight behind the fracking boom, IOF should be able to maximise the value of their water assets, indeed the rights alone to those assets will increase in value in themselves. Im just wondering whether a blind-side right hook could catch IOF offguard. I dont know, just thinking, any opinions from anyone on the matter welcome.

[veldt] 14/8/2013 11:15

This is an interesting article about the demand for water in Texas - especially the bit about trucking in water.

[superg1] 14/8/2013 11:11

Well I suppose this sums up the situation better than I can.

Note the number of farmer Giles suppliers that will disappear once they withdraw the emergency legislation. Irrigation rights can not be used for industrial use, but they have they have allowed it as a temporary measure to meet the demand. In fact they 'urged' farmers to do it.

The key factor for water costs is depot location v where the wells are.

Note most rights owners draw from aquifers, and it is not sustainable.

.....

The water business is good for locals, too. Several dozen farmers and ranchers with access to water and $150,000 to spend have built water depots like this one -- trailer-sized aluminum pump-sheds with eight-inch pipes sticking out of the sides. These private water sellers pulled in $25 million to $30 million last year, according to Steve Mortenson, who heads the Independent Water Providers, a group that represents the industry in the state capital. Several local towns have built depots to sell excess municipal water, pulling in another $10 million or so last year, Mortenson estimates, a substantial sum given their average population of a few thousand people.

The sales are raising uncomfortable questions in a region where fewer than 15 inches of rain falls each year. In many places, the nearest water is 1,000 feet down in a large aquifer that flows freely to the surface in low-lying areas. But it recharges slowly, and the level at which it flows without pumping is dropping more than a foot per year from overuse. Meanwhile, most of the fracking water comes from a series of smaller, shallower aquifers, some of which are already stretched to meet drinking and irrigation needs. The Missouri River has begun to provide some relief, though federal agencies are already tussling over the possible negative effects of withdrawals. To make matters worse, the fracking water ends up contaminated and must be injected thousands of feet underground, removing it from the hydrologic cycle.

There's plenty to supply the oil companies for now, says Bob Shaver, director of the water appropriations division for the Water Commission, which monitors the state's aquifers and regulates all surface and groundwater withdrawals. The best estimate for oil-field use is about 3 billion gallons, based on last year's activity, with demand projected to double over the next decade. But it's only a matter of time before the state's water is fully appropriated, he says, and any new use will have noticeable effects. That day is nearing as the oil rush drives population growth in rural areas with little infrastructure, further straining water supplies. McKenzie County, in the heart of the boom, has grown 20 percent in two years.

Each new depot draws more opposition from neighbors and other interests, Shaver says, highlighting the resource's increasing value -- and scarcity. "To me, water is going to be the oil of the 21st century."

[bogg1e] 14/8/2013 10:23

So even satanists are pouring money into IOF stocks!

[worraps] 14/8/2013 10:21

....Wrote 1 minute too soon!!

[worraps] 14/8/2013 10:20

No trades since the 3 x 666 trades at 08:43am.......??

[skylite] 14/8/2013 10:14

Morning all,

I wouldn't think too long Jointer, days not weeks? Throw in new exec announcements to come and the back 2 weeks in August could provide some good new flow.

[rugrat2] 14/8/2013 10:04

Sandbag - thanks for the PM, but got sorted now.

[jointer13] 14/8/2013 09:36

wonder how long...application deemed correct...determination to grant rights..?

[n3tleylucas] 14/8/2013 09:22

Of course, it's such a great share it's simply impossible to imagine even a small number of critics here. So 'they' must be multi-avatars.

Arrogant or what?

145p.

Wasn't this supposed to be 290 now? Halfway to paradise eh ...

[bocker01] 14/8/2013 09:08

Seems like Maca accepts the water permit is coming and is forced to change his stance to denugrate its value. Quite transparent switch of tactic. As usual based on BS dressed up as research. What other names does he post under?

[che7win] 14/8/2013 09:03

No point worrying too much about the water at this stage, it's non-core and not factored into any broker notes or forecasts.

[superg1] 14/8/2013 08:44

Lib

Costs pb to actually get it into a well even with cold, ranges from $4 to $5 per barrel.

There is a very simple reason why that cost can be so high, and why operators have that cost.

There is also a very simple way to reduce that cost. It's a case of ND and Montana infrastructure being behind the curve.

So it's not about demand alone.

Certain researchers can work that one out for themselves for now. I'll explain it once the permit is granted.

However, it is blatantly obvious to anyone that had done serious research.

[1madmarky] 14/8/2013 08:43

RE: The water. I do hope they either rethink putting the terminal in this year, they should have time just. Do they have to wait for the final approval before making another application, or are they just proving the process. Thus once the first is approved they then fire new ones off as and when they have there ducks in a row. It's frustrating looking in from the outside not knowing how much work is involved putting one of these applications together. I know the steps they need to take, but not the man hours required to do so. Anyway, they are continuing to do what they said they were going to do, so as an investment it's still a no brainer.

[bobsworth] 14/8/2013 08:42

sg1 you have the patience of a saint when it comes to these suttle derampers.

I just ignore the lot and have them on filter.

Very soon they will be gone, when we get the expected ping, and start sailing pass £5.

[the librarian] 14/8/2013 08:28

It doesn't matter if they only sell 15% of what they have available, once the initial cost is taken out it's all profit with minimal opex, pump it from the river and into the trucks, it's a good number.

[superg1] 14/8/2013 08:16

Bee in bonnet here (mild irritant) over a load of BS being posted.

I don't trust you Macca, never have, but I always try to accommodate new arrivals and help.

Much of what you have posted as deep research, avoids obvious answers to floor your arguments. But you just step over those facts, beyond someone who is trying to take the cautious view.

Every business plan can have delays or trip wires to overcome, no surprise there.

Water we have always treated as a free carry.

80k bpd for the first depot, one of potentially 6 as time goes on, and maybe more as IOF have other strings to their bow, that no other water supplier has, or could ever hope to achieve.

Notes say 10c to 20c opex. Elsewhere you would have heard 5c to 7c for cold water.

Last time I looked cold water for well placed depots ranged from $1 to $1.60. Hot $5 plus pb.

ND $1 to $2 for cold, $5 plus for hot.


You do the maths, it's a free carry, our interest is iodine.

Then when you do the work re who can provide the lowest opex for hot water, look at that $5 figure again.

We don't know yet, if IOF plan all cold at that depot, all hot, of a split.

Obviously the first step is the permit, but once granted it opens the door to a very lucrative business, with potentially 6 times that to come with other depots and maybe more as the whole area expands on the 3 forks.

We don't need water, but it's a hell of a bonus.

[captain_kurt] 14/8/2013 08:11

Back from my sunny hols.
The shorters can only hang onto CF staying in his role as the CEO

Uh oh :@)

[escapetohome] 14/8/2013 08:05

I wonder if maca is Mr jonnysmall in disguise? Same sneering attitude same reliance on non facts