Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[hitsha3] 30/11/2013 21:57

all iam saying is water more important than iodine, and to me looks like it is so tell me something diffrent.

[superg1] 30/11/2013 21:36

Hitsha

It's the business aspects that matter, io whatever will come, they have the sites and the roll out plan.

If they look after, and drive the business the share price will look after itself.

It's been talk about io3 to 6 for months and they have just out put news re that.

The next most obvious revenue point is water, and we don't know the full plans on that yet.

Building water depots, with pipelines and pumps, taking water from a river, isn't a difficult business, and doesn't need any secrecy. Everyone knows there is a big water demand and where to find it.

CF was very simplistic about that business stating how basic the needs are to progress once you have a permit. Someone asked about the Montana winter being barrier to near term completion. CF dismissed that as not an issue, I'm not sure I entirely agree, as it looks a tad nippy up there in winter time.

On timelines though it looks like a spring build anyway, if all goes well.

If they haven't sorted a contractor yet, I've got a cement mixer, and it seems sandbag knows the pipeline business, so we'll go and sort it.

[hitsha3] 30/11/2013 19:15

Why does everything depend on water, but not iodine. It seems to me that the share price will only go up with water rights.

[superg1] 30/11/2013 17:16

Noli

If you continue down that list, with that first line, it details what the applicant has to do, if under 4000 acre the water bureau does it.

Jeff P explained the reason at the presentation he attended.

He basically said, (in his normal humour). They said if you apply for the whole amount it's going to take a long time, however if you do it this way.........

So IOF did it the way the water bureau suggested. A bit like planning officers here, if you want to do something beyond the normal rules, it can be achieved but it will take much longer.

[mikkydhu] 30/11/2013 15:02

Yes, noli, I agree: not ppm from the logs. But given that they now have a good idea about what formations contain iodine, they may be able to judge its likely presence from oil well logs.

[noli] 30/11/2013 14:59

Cheers SG, i have not come across that before. It makes sense.

[noli] 30/11/2013 14:54

mikkydhu, maybe not the ppm but the actual formation itself so they can locate other formations from the logs.

[superg1] 30/11/2013 14:54

Noli the key point is to do with who does the work, not about the evidence.

If you apply for over 4k, the applicant has to do all the work, and provide all the data for a host of points. If under 4k the water bureau itself does the work as it has all the data.

So if you apply for over 4k, it would take a couple of years to get it all sorted, under 4k and it follows normal rules.

So that's the reason, under 4k the bureau do the work, over 4k you have to do all the survey yourself. Jeff P explained that, the bureau said if you do it that way, it's going to take you a lot longer, however if you do it this way............. IOF took the advice, hence the 3800 acre foot application. If they hadn't I'd be talking 2105/16 at the earliest, for the award of a 10k single permit.

Relevant evidence is not the reason, just efficiency/process mapping to get form A to B is the reason

The original intent with Hal was 100k bpd (100k in Montana, 100k in ND). The split then was 50/50 at a suggested 30/50 cents pb for iof.

This current permit when awarded amounts to just over 80k bpd, but currently no JV revenue split. So worth more currently than the original 100k JV deal.

The 10k comment covers 200k bpd for just Montana.

I haven't a clue if they intend to do depot 2 and 3 in Montana. Once we get a decent water update we should know what is going on. The award of the first permit should start a bit of information flow.

They clearly have more demand than for 80k bpd though, for Montana.

[noli] 30/11/2013 14:49

Well in May 2013 he was collecting produced water samples from petroleum pad locations in Oklahoma and Texas


Field Geologist - Intern

Iofina Natural Gas, Inc.

Public Company; 11-50 employees; IOF; Oil & Energy industry

May 2013– August 2013 (4 months)8480 e orchard rd., greenwood village, co 80111

During my internship with Iofina I gained experience in collecting produced water samples from petroleum pad locations in Oklahoma and Texas, analyzed water samples for iodine concentrations, created and managed SW volumes and iodine concentration libraries for AOI, researched and explored for new iodine AOIs in the continental U.S., created geological and topographic maps, and gained experience in using IHS: Petra modeling and mapping program.

[mikkydhu] 30/11/2013 14:42

Perhaps analyzing oil companies' well logs for iodine parts per million?

[noli] 30/11/2013 14:38

This is a new one for me: His update in August 2013, analyzing well logs.?

Are we doing some drilling.?

Also, and furthering iodine exploration in produced water across N. America, Australia, and Eastern Europe.


Staff Geologist

Iofina Natural Gas, Inc.

Public Company; 11-50 employees; IOF; Oil & Energy industry

August 2013– Present (4 months)8480 e orchard rd., greenwood village, co 80111

Now that I have been converted into a Staff Geologist for Iofina Natural Gas, Inc. (aka Iofina Resources) I will be performing the same duties as I have been during my internship, as well as analyzing well logs and furthering iodine exploration in produced water across N. America, Australia, and Eastern Europe.

[noli] 30/11/2013 13:49

naphar, here is the info re permit:

The department may not issue a permit for an appropriation of 4,000 or more acre-feet of water a year and 5.5 or more cubic feet per second of water unless the applicant proves by clear and convincing evidence that:

I presume this was not on the cards for iof. (unless the applicant proves by clear and convincing evidence that:
)

[noli] 30/11/2013 13:37

Just a thought on that 10k af iof applied for, before it was changed to the current application, 3k+ af. If iof wanted 10k af for just 1 depot, and that intended depot i assume is the current iof water application but for only the 3k af. What is stopping iof from using the same information,i.e take out point, ROW, land owners, etc etc for the second application to the same depot.

If that was the original iof plan then the only thing that may have changed is iof could not apply for the 10k af, if this is the case then it may happen much quicker than we think.

[superg1] 30/11/2013 13:27

Unless of course they press the rights swap button, which is a different matter altogether.

It will depend on customer demand I suppose.

[naphar] 30/11/2013 13:22

Thanks SG, yes I know all the background work needs to be done in advance, I was just wondering if that can all be done and 2 new applications can then go in at the same time. If noli is right, it seems that's not possible within the same state. Which means subsequent applications, and a longer time frame to get all the rights you want, with IOF obviously having the rights swap deal as a back up if they have immediate demand.

All looking good when PDTG goes through, but happy to keep my expectations in check if you can only have one application running at one time.

Thanks noli as well

[superg1] 30/11/2013 13:13

If they have them planned Naph, all land leases and rights of way have to be sorted, pre application.

That means finding an extraction point, sort the ROW for a pipeline, lease/buy land from a landowner etc. Once the those things are done they can apply

If they were thinking one depot at 10k acre feet, then that was all sorted for one location not 3.

So they would have to sort all the above before any further applications, if that's the plan. Any missing leases or ROW end up with a deficiency letter.

All the hard work re a permit goes on pre application.

[noli] 30/11/2013 13:07

naphar, if i understood the water application t+cs, iof are not allowed to apply for another water application in montana until the current one is finalised. So if we are only x weeks away from that point iof may submit another application straight away for montana. IOF could on the other hand apply for one in ND and montana at the same time.

[naphar] 30/11/2013 13:00

SG, re "Re water. IOF should never have submitted an application for 10k acre feet in a single application."

Maybe not, but maybe they had their reasons. Or maybe it was stupidity, it matters not, we are getting nearer, and in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it added that much to the time frame to be honest. I just wish they had put in the next two already. I don't see the sense in waiting if they will be different sites and each site is judged independently. On the other hand, if they group current applications, I totally see the sense in waiting, but it does mean it will take quite some time before we reach the 240k bpd level. Any idea on that piece from reading you have already done? If not I'll try and take a look tonight.

[naphar] 30/11/2013 12:45

SG, now the penny drops! Yes Ramu posts are irritating me a bit lately as may have been evident a week or so ago. I just can't be bothered with commenting on that anymore, wastes effort I think.

[superg1] 30/11/2013 12:26

Naph No

I believe Ram is in that business, but I may be wrong.

[superg1] 30/11/2013 12:25

Naphar

Re water. IOF should never have submitted an application for 10k acre feet in a single application. That's not to say they don't intend to cover that in time, it was purely down to Water rights application rules.

I'll have a moan myself about that one. Anything over 4k acre feet would have meant IOF would probably have spent 2 years doing environmental impact assessments and a long list of other requirements.

Under 4k acre feet, and the water bureau have all that info and simply apply it to your application. That's why the 10k acre intent has split it 3. So all potential applications are under 4k acre feet.

A stupid error.

On the subject of 'what will happen', yes one would hope for some solid details on that front once the ball is rolling.

Personally I think they will seek to JV and let a partner run it, as in the original Hal idea. It wouldn't have arrived any quicker re Hal, as they were too obsessed with Cleanwave and recycling. As demonstrated in that recent article, the water recycling boom, didn't take off, and looks very much like a failed big idea.

I believe Hal were looking at the IOF JV in a different way to what some may think. IOF are already contracted with most of the US top oil and Gas companies re waste brine. Hal probably saw that as a good lead, to gain contracts at SWD sites through IOF.

The recycling argument and threat has been mentioned plenty of times over the last year or two. The clear issue for that is cost of recycling v fresh water.

Fresh water can be 60 cents to 80 cents pb and higher. The higher prices can be charged if you have a depot close to where the operator wants it. It's simple case of haulage costs. Chesa list costs of $1 pb per hour of haulage .

The clear answer, if viable, is pipelines, as in the long term it massively reduces costs, and pleases the authorities re reduced trucking.

There are dozens of depots all over the place, but many of those are farmers on borrowed time temporary change of use permits, and they have very little volume to offer the big companies. They will be the 60/80 cents folk, off the beaten track.

Ames water which there is plenty of info about, have been in ND for years. I suspect some of their rights may be irrigation based, as that is the industry they used to supply.

If pipelines are to be used by the majors, they will want them to go to large suppliers, to reduce the network of pipelines needed.

Oasis seem to be an aggressive up and coming player in the area. They are already using pipelines for their fluids which includes brine. In a recent advert for their intended mid services division, they want a manager with pipeline experience, including fresh water. The whole set up seems to suggest they will be looking to put in fresh water pipelines, others will surely follow.

Who are they going to get their water off?. It won't be small multiple depots, they will want solid, big volume suppliers.

As in that recycling link, those involved thought recycling would be a boom industry, people like Schlumberger and Halliburton. However it clearly hasn't worked out. The big industry is fresh water.

So if that is to be a big industry in the Bakken, then the extras IOF have re rights swaps and other matters are huge.

Frustrating that it has dragged on, but the end game right now looks very lucrative.

I've been following what Bob Shaver says. The guy knows the industry inside, and is probably one of the most knowledgeable guys in the US on the subject.

Even his prediction of water use just 12 months or so back, has been exceeded by some margin.

He calls it the oil of the 21st century.

I strongly believe (excluding Lance) that the IOF team really didn't appreciate just how big that sector could be.

The Missouri river feeds various oil states. Besides water rights, IOF sit on a 35 billion barrel gas aquifer, that we know the produced water just has low salt in, that when removed can be discharged into the river system, or Fresno reservoir.

The Fresno has a 500k bpd storage capacity. I saw somewhere, that iof did around 7k bpd of brine from 4 wells, but have had higher rates. With pumps they could soon put that up.

Drilling costs 50k per well. For the 500k bpd on the figures mentioned it would be a $15m cost.

I looked up desalination costs, which seem to be around 5 cents to 10 cents pb. Gas production as a by-product would offset costs

500k bpd maybe at no cost due to gas revenue, to take out your owned water, probably wherever you like downstream.

In the long run a potentially very efficient operation to reduce costs for an oil company.

Even more so, if water rights are fully appropriated in the area. The 3 forks level, previously thought to contain water, has this year been proved to be full of oil (as in the USGS report). So the water use looks set to continue on it's steep climb for some years.

The direct supply is down the road stuff, 2 or 3 years back the biggest oil services companies saw recycling as the way forward, that has proved to have been a wrong thought process by their own admission.

The above Atlantis comment is down the road. Hal obviously could see it, as they wanted 50% of Atlantis for a cash payment. IOF were right to turn them down imo.

The recycling crew won't be thinking 'what now', they know the business is fresh water.

Gas fracking seems to have failed to excite the industry. I've been following gasfrac on that front.

Everyone clearly thought it was a great idea. Share price late 2011 to early 2012 around $5 rising to a peak of $14, by late 2012 reality kicked in it hit around $1.50 and is currently on $1.46.



Many here didn't think recycling would take off, or gas fracking.

$14 to $1.46 tells a story on that front.

The current future for fracking seems to be fresh water. Other technologies may appear, but with the efficiency options available by removing trucking, it's going to be hard to beat.

Another long post. But what use is-:

'Gas fracking is not popular, recycling didn't work out, fresh water is the big business here'

For those that couldn't see this coming, and still can't work it out, that's up to them, it looks like a good business to me.

[johncsimpson] 30/11/2013 12:06

This is a rushed comment re ramu kumar; I have a busy few hours ahead.

I was not able to follow these threads for 4 months during the summer months so ramu kumar is a poster who I've only come across recently. He seems to have started posting on the IOF threads in early May – that's as early as my 'previous' posts search will go. Having read just about everything that he has posted, I've ended with a feeling of an individual who is at best confused and at worst a liar. Yes, I said liar.

I don't expect that Mr kumar will show his face here again but if you are reading this somewhere with some smug grin on your face and feel you can refute my point above, then bring it on. But I don't think you will.

If you feel you can defend a few more quick points then please do. I asked late last night when you first made what I will now call your outrageous post 11734 at 21:57 the following. From the end of my post 11742 last night, I quote:

So to summarise, I'm only interested in two questions which are 'under what circumstances did you arrive 'here' and what is your financial interest in IOF?' If you feel you cannot answer the second question, fair enough (but you haven't been shy in the past), but if you cannot answer the first, I suspect in the eyes of many here you'll weaken whatever case you may have.

ramu kumar's post of early May continually asked for level 2 (spread betting with hundreds of thousands of pounds at stake without level 2)?

ramu kumar repeatedly claims to have 200k shares in IOF bought in at prices as low as 40p (which would mean buying over a year ago so obviously not a novice despite no level 2).

ramu kumar claims that this is his second highest holding to FUM (so presumably even now sitting on +£300K)

ramu kumar claimed to not to have sold a single share despite sitting on a thumping loss.

ramu kumar claims to have multibagged on 100k back in October (thought you hadn't sold).

ramu kumar claims he is not good at investing if truth be told (well there's one fact, at least).

On Nov 5 this 200k holding morphs into a series of spread bets - which is it? 200k of shares or a spread bet that must have severely tested your margins over the past 12 months or so?

ramu kumar claims that every penny variance in the IOF price costs him £2k (so still had his 'shares' on 5 Nov)

ramu kumar bangs on about being promised 'riches beyond our dreams' and tells others to take a reality check.

ramu kumar thanks people for being civil and positive re his rants (this is the same post – 7 Oct - where he claims IOF is his second highest holding to FUM)

I could go on and will if ramu kumar feels I don't have a point or two here. But please get back.

And ramu – no answer = no credibility

[orslega] 30/11/2013 11:44

interesting comments this week..

"The size of the opportunity is huge," he said. "It just takes a while for new ideas and new concepts to be adopted."

hxxp://fwbusinesspress.com/fwbp/article/1/3235/Featured/Fracking-bonanza-eludes-wastewater-recycling-investors.aspx