Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[nashwan123] 22/4/2014 08:11

I'm out at 57p L 2 showing higher prices available! GL LTH.

[noli] 22/4/2014 08:10

Get ready for the bounce imho

[karmastuartra] 22/4/2014 08:08

water not important,not as the market see it!

[superg1] 22/4/2014 08:03

Ammons

After reading all the rules and seeing IOF have met or gained the points on the criteria list, it was guessed that is was over the amount and a concern whether IOF could sell it all.

Clearly as in the last line of the rns that is what it is all about. The bureau obviously contest whether IOF can sell the full allocation.

So as before and like IOF I am confident they will get it, the only query as I have said a few times is for how much.

The bureau could issue the permit for a lesser amount as in the rules. The hearing could award with conditions for less etc etc.

It's no big deal for the bureau as there is a use it or lose it rule anyway, over a 12 month period.

[discostutoo] 22/4/2014 08:03

Big 10% plus drop on opening... water not important?

[karmastuartra] 22/4/2014 08:02

going down as i feared

[ansana] 22/4/2014 07:59

Get your customers out, "will you buy Iofina's water" ? "Yes me Lud" "ladies and gentlemen of the jury there you have it" granted.

[woodpeckers] 22/4/2014 07:53

Agree Ansana. Looks like its simply a case of "the marketability of water" which is holding things up. That shouldn't be too hard to prove at the hearing, they certainly seem convinced that they can. A good clear rns.

[orslega] 22/4/2014 07:53

ansana - yes, in this case Iofina was probably one step ahead...the February RNS effectively said this would go to hearing...

[koolade] 22/4/2014 07:50

Non-Core guys, non core

[ansana] 22/4/2014 07:48

That will do me an rns that was well written. It mapped out what, where and when next as though they knew it would ultimately come to this. This isn't the first rns that's mentioned a hearing. I want them to see this through it would be madness to walk away because we still have the opportunity to secure the permit, sell water and have a water business. We have Bill in post who can take this forward and leave the rest of the team to get on with optimising the iodine plants - 5 soon to be 6 and the review. There is nothing in here to cause anxiety quite the opposite and I can't see any reason to give my shares to others so I won't.

[karmastuartra] 22/4/2014 07:42

markdown today,pity,i was in profit!

[1madmarky] 22/4/2014 07:38

Good, they intend to continue with the application. The water business is just too valuable to give up on. Should we get it and the oil boom take off as in North decota then we will be a large supplier of a supply constrained resource. That means loads ' a ' money! Aimho of course.

[orslega] 22/4/2014 07:22

sure I read here that 8 of 10 Water applications going to DNRC hearing were successful....the other 2 either withdrew applications or failed to appear at hearing..

....although not done and dusted yet, it actually looks quite optimistic based on what IOF have said about letters of intent...ie they have the demand...

note wording..."preliminary determination" - so that leaves the application very much in play....albeit it non core, v useful addition..

[orslega] 22/4/2014 07:17

ammons - correct. So now all about providing all those letters of intent at hearing....be good to see some of the "wanting suppliers" making appearances at the hearing to underline the amount required.

From memory, wasn't the DNRC who suggested scaling back the application from 200,000 bpd to 80,0000 bpd?

If that is all it is, the permit should be forthcoming....albeit the possibility of reduced amount...

[naphar] 22/4/2014 07:15

My thoughts exactly ammons

[ammons] 22/4/2014 07:09

".....We will continue to pursue approval of the application and expect the anticipated hearing to be an opportunity for the Group to establish its case for the marketability of water."

The authorities don't think they can sell the amount requested?

[grahamhacker] 22/4/2014 07:06

Usual basic min information !

[n3tleylucas] 22/4/2014 04:11

I'm informed chatting to internet trolls only encourages them

You spend several millions of sterling pounds to post that?

Either you want to max your tax loss or you're way out of yer depth...

Eh?

How does that make you feel?

You have spent more than anyone here can imagine... yet you post like a child.

Your adviser was right, go away.

[freshvoicem] 21/4/2014 23:37

Graham,
I just saw three pigs flying past, iodine coloured.LOL

[grahamhacker] 21/4/2014 22:25

Tomorrow is an opportunity for IOF to update us, it's shareholders, in an adult professional manner, completely & unambiguously on all areas of the business:1. year end - detailed breakdown - no ambiguity2. 1/4 1 Iodine production & stock, including chemical's divn sales.3. Exact position of water, including planning issues.Clarity on the future, in numerical terms, not fuzzy words!Or perhaps I am dreaming!

[superg1] 21/4/2014 21:27

Yes water is non core it has always been called that. But as for the bod not expecting to get it..........

Geoff Ploen at a presentation. 99% sure they will get it and no one has been refused before for water for fracking.

Bobby we can only guess what IOF said at the meeting but perhaps they insisted they believe they have the right to the full amount.

The bureau may have decided there is not enough evidence to support the amount applied for can be put to beneficial use. In that case they would move to deny which they have. So my guess is (after much reading) that the bureau consider the amount applied for is beyond what IOF could sell through water marketing. So they have denied the permit. It's up to IOF to prove they could sell the entire amount, or as is an option accept the permit at a lower amount. Many permits at hearing are granted 'with conditions' and in part.

I would like them to update us about what exactly the issue is, but the amount is large and going on the Culbertson data (didn't sell their full allocation) perhaps the bureau consider IOF can't sell it all.

It could be as simple as that.

There is no way imo that the bureau or any hearing could deny IOF any water. The fact is they have a beneficial use and the water is legally available, rights of way, site and everything else sorted. So IOF are quite right to contest not getting a permit, but may have to back down on the amount requested to get a permit for a reduced amount.

As for the now rather boring 'priced in' comments. I take it that no one expected a price rise if the permit had been awarded ???. You can't have it both ways.

As Rockstar says now enters a time of consolidation where the forecast is 700 to 1000mt pa, or $14m to $20m profit on forecasts. Before any pods and the next phase of big plants, so of anyone is happy to hand over their shares there have been plenty sat on hands waiting.

That's before any price rises in iodine which I'm confident will occur over the next year or two. A 2 year TP of $60 to $70 per kg for me, which doubles the above figures.