Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[che7win] 04/10/2014 22:12

Danster,
The water could be very material, up to 8-10p EPS to IOF without dilution on my rough assumptions.

I'd like to see someone properly work out the value.

[danster4] 04/10/2014 20:32

Looking back at the May 2013 First Columbus company note, when they had a target share price for the company of £2.39 per share, the "water wildcard" was not factored in to this valuation. They said it could provide a material stream of income to the company and could provide a major catalyst to the share price. Looking forward to next week!

[spike_1] 04/10/2014 20:14

I think we may need to reduce the value per barrel for our fresh water because the current price is based on availability.

If we are going to bring in a very substantial additional source, then surely the market price will drop considerably. We will need to play the market carefully.

However, if water flooding becomes viable (I am no expert) then quite possibly it could work out 'well' ;0)

Old article:

[woolybanana] 04/10/2014 19:51

Mr Big might well be tempted as the return is risk free, from what my feeble brain can understand

[spike_1] 04/10/2014 19:41

Madchick,

Re:
"A positive outcome would require additional financing to complete this project."

I'm guessing they are intentionally warning shareholders there would be a mechanism needed (placing?) to raise the needed cash. Thus weakening the hand of a potential partner (with the bucket of money) during negotiations.


Food for thought perhaps - Mike

[germanicus] 04/10/2014 19:27

Arlington Chetwynd Talbot 4 Oct'14 - 17:15 - 25307 of 25316 1 1


Well we might see 45/46 on Monday and probably de-listed as worthless this time next year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's this plank?....You Short? lol!

G ;-)

[madchick] 04/10/2014 18:48

In the interims, I was quite surprised to see the following in relation to the water:

"A positive outcome would require additional financing to complete this project."

I would have thought that if they were considering a JV (which must surely be being considered, since they never ruled it out even after ditching Halliburton, at least temporarily), they would have written something like "A JV on this project will likely be pursued should a a positive outcome be forthcoming"

But maybe I'm reading too much into it and maybe they were being deliberately vague to keep all options open.

I'm not too fussed what they decide to do - just very happy at the news! Next year, if they get that far, will be a corker. I know I think this every year, but honestly, next year, it will be!

[brucie5] 04/10/2014 18:24

Helpful, thanks.

[naphar] 04/10/2014 18:20

Brucie
it's potentially worth north of $28m pa revenue for 100% share of the business, at quite a low cost (assuming cold water only) once the depot is in place. Ie very profitable. Assumption is we can get a very nice up front cash payment by doing a JV for perhaps 50% of the business, with the partner paying to build the depot.

Simple enough?

[naphar] 04/10/2014 18:13

Seems like I am in the minority on not doing a JV. In fairness, I just prefer that option on the assumption the NPV would be better as that seems logical to me, and even with millions more in the bank from a JV, I'm not convinced roll out would be that rapid, it might not be prudent especially given past performance.

End of the day, I am happy enough to let the board decide the best way forward, assuming they do the NPV calcs and give them the proper consideration in making their decisions.

[brucie5] 04/10/2014 18:07

Boggle/SG, could you explain the significance of this 'water rights' thingy in plain language for the benefit of the ignorant. (err.. me).

[woodpeckers] 04/10/2014 18:05

Thanks SG, it sounds as though we are at least 97% there then. :-)

[angel of the north] 04/10/2014 17:54

Looks like Aldi has White Lightning 'tinnies' on the 'whoopsie' shelf?

[stevo2011] 04/10/2014 17:25

Changed from your 80p long target from yesterday

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 04/10/2014 17:15

Well we might see 45/46 on Monday and probably de-listed as worthless this time next year.

[monty panesar] 04/10/2014 17:14

Going back in time the estimates were that this water project could be worth around £1 per share. Not going to do that immediately but could do it between now and production commencing which should be in 10-12 months but depends on what deal is done on the jv. Good news on the hot water.



Also IOF still have the Atlantis water Swap rights still to use which are worth lot of money.

Looks like IOF are going to have loads of cash to finance the rollout.

[che7win] 04/10/2014 17:00

Boggle,
As others say, look at post 25270.

[elbillo] 04/10/2014 16:41

So 64 million dollar question what price Monday and what price this time next year.

[monts12] 04/10/2014 16:40

SG
Any chance you could add this info to the header?

Leggit (25263) :

The original application was for 3800 Acre-feet per annum, subsequently amended to 3622 AF. This amount has been awarded in full. Equivalent to 1,180,232,322 gallons per year or 37,468,000 barrels (not oil barrels)

Letters of intent include Trustland Oil Field Services (for 1000 AF) Halliburton (1000-1500 AF) and three Fire Depts; totalling 2300 to 2800 AF.
It was only necessary to have LOI for over 50% of applied for.

A date for objections to be received by will be specified in the public notice but will be over 15 and up to 60 days. If valid objections are received we proceed to a contested case.

[woodpeckers] 04/10/2014 16:37

For it to 'fail' the public notice phase someone would surely have to provide good reason. Is this even vaguely likely? What sort of reason could be given for objecting????

[roboben] 04/10/2014 16:28

Boggle - Leggit's post 25270

[spike_1] 04/10/2014 16:27

I guess we need to consider greedy numpties and over leverage on spreadbets between now and the end of the public notice period. We could be in for a volatile ride.

Be careful folks!