Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 06/10/2014 11:32

The wet weather stops the build point.

The wet ground condition relates only to the laying of the pipeline to the river, not the depot.

That's said it would be a tough build over the winter. Timings on revenue from potential sales is irrelevant to me. The potential of a sudden large cash injection into the bank from a partner, is a potential short term catalyst to accelerate the iodine business.

Surely any depot build would be next spring, but potentially any lump sum could be in the bank post no objections, and full award of the permit.

[superg1] 06/10/2014 11:21

If you think about what first Columbus put in their note about the water potential then you get the potential. They were talking about the big picture of all permits, scary figures.

On the price of hot water, it's supply and demand. Farmer Giles doesn't have the capital to fund hot water systems and most of them are on temporary permits.

$2.10 may be Armstrong's tech opex claim but they are heater suppliers, and claim to be a low cost leader.

Add in the pumping costs for cold water, and the capex injection to provide the end user with a nice depot after years of hard work, then it explains why the price is where it is.

If the margin wasn't better than cold there would be no incentive for anyone to supply hot water.

[superg1] 06/10/2014 11:01

Just for the record, the comment about what was in the deal was out there for all to see.

"Once water rights granted JV partner must fund 100% of cost to develop - up $5m USD for water and an option for 50% of Atlantis for $10m USD or forfeit all rights"

So you can see why I consider a JV is coming with no development costs and a big lump sum.

That was all decided pre hot water becoming a trend, and early on in the Bakken boom.

[woolybanana] 06/10/2014 10:49

ref25487: and boy is Quadrise cheap at the monent.

[spideyyy] 06/10/2014 10:45

thanks sg.exciting times ahead

[superg1] 06/10/2014 10:27

Spidey

Good question.

The hal deal was to be signed off well before the water permit could have been issued so yes so a matter could be signed off quickly.

However the original would surely have been subject to the issues of a permit/s, so anything now would be the same imo.

The JV potentially involves 4/5 apects.

The actual permit/s

The Atlantis water source combined with the discharge permit.

The US fisheries rights swap deal.

The water disposal side of the business.


If a fund reads the above list, it will be a WTF is he going on about (except 1)

GET SOME DECENT ANALYSTS, THAT UNDERSTAND WTF they are reading for various shares, and you will know wtf we go on about.

If they had the slightest clue in the iodine industry, and Chile they wouldn't have been screaming buy SQM at $60 (top analysts?).

Look at SQM and Sirocco now (the 2 public companies). By the way I think the final nail in the coffin for RB/Sirocco is due any day, maybe this week. The CEO there is a fraud imo.

[cyberbub] 06/10/2014 10:13

Yes it's not totally out of the question that there might be objections from other people with 'interests' in water supply, but after 2+ years of work by IOF, negotiations with a wide range of partners, and legal arguments galore to reach the award of permit, it seems very highly unlikely that they would be upheld by the water board... they would almost certainly be judged as 'invalid' or even 'vexatious' IMO, and dismissed... The water board is not going to award a permit if they believe that there is any significant challenge that might come forward... they would face big questions being asked of themselves...NAI DYOR

[superg1] 06/10/2014 10:05

The objection period.

As pointed out by some don't forget that the permit is not awarded until the objection period ends with no objections.

If objections come the bureau first considers if they are valid.

You can forget anyone with rights claiming an adverse issue as it's the Missouri and just about all rights are upstream from IOF.

There are other adverse claims that can be made.

Note what IOF out in the rns

'barring any unlikely objections'.

Why did they put that in?

Here if the relevant point of law re adverse effect

(1)(b), adverse effect must be determined based on a consideration of an applicant's plan for the exercise of the permit that demonstrates that the applicant's use of the water will be controlled so the water right of a prior appropriator will be satisfied;

In the hearing document it states

In the Preliminary Determination to Deny the Department found that the Applicant had satisfied the criteria of physical availability, legal availability, adverse effect and possessory interest.


A fund could see that document, fully understand what it says, but not have the slightest clue what it means.

IOF can't say there won't be objections, but they know the door for valid objections is practically slammed shut anyway.

You can't object just to frustrate the process, they determine if any objection is valid first, and they have already agreed IOF have proved no adverse effect.

The Bureau has a vast database of adverse effect issues, if there were any to consider, they would have included them in the determination to deny, but they didn't.

The only query was the ability to transfer the amount of water and beneficial use, both of which were emphatically accepted by the hearing examiner. Well he had to really, as the law supports IOF.

[spideyyy] 06/10/2014 10:04

hi.great news.Any idea on a JV being announced before the "short notice public period" or would any partner require full sign off ?thnks

[hurricane.] 06/10/2014 09:57

Why do they have margins of 100% on iodine and 500%+ on water ?

case closed lol

[cyberbub] 06/10/2014 09:57

Hurricane I think a 4 to 5 bagger will come sooner than 3 years personally...NAI

[bogg1e] 06/10/2014 09:55

No i'd be buying Quadrise :-) Although for me IOF does come a close second.

[hurricane.] 06/10/2014 09:51

if you had stacks of cash,and were looking at a 4 to 5 bagger in quick
time over 3 years, wouldn't you be buying these big time. I would.

[superg1] 06/10/2014 09:41

Averaging up is what funds do, averaging down is what a PI does. I've been told that countless times by the fund folk.

Averaging up requires an up trend with momentum and that's what funds buy into. Pre this news some of those were looking for 50mt per month consistently before committing.

This may well now put a different slant on things.

$15m and $5m is outstanding in the notes, the $5m can be force converted post that 80p ish figures for 5 days etc.

At the moment funds will want a fund raise. Mr B will tell you (if he cares to admit it) that funds were queuing when that $5 mill bond appeared.

The IOF phone will be hot today with a fund or two wanting to be involved in a a fund raise. That's the way it works, that is the most cost effective way to get any shares they want.

Try putting a bid in for 5 million shares and see what price you can get them, at. Try that with others wanting 2 million, 3 million and so on.

It's highly likely JV cash will cover this, that's not a buy now tip, that's a view from someone, who has had 100's probably 1000's of comms with such folk all iof based, over the last few years.

[che7win] 06/10/2014 09:34

This price 55p is where we should on the iodine business.

Water is yet to be valued into the price, what an opportunity.

[che7win] 06/10/2014 09:31

I reckon it's worth 100p to us if we were to sell the full application, with half hot water and half cold water.
That is us owning the full business, paying 30% tax.

Half cold water sold at 30 cent margins is $4,250,000 profit, half hot water at $2 margin is $28,000,000 profit, see the difference?
If the business really is close to that, the value is higher than we all think.

[orslega] 06/10/2014 09:26

agreed - markets are rigged....one rule for the big boys....that will never change...

averaging up, not sure about that for most long tremors here but certainly the current share price is a steal.......it will take a while for the market to work out what the water is worth...

broker might make a stab at it...

[superg1] 06/10/2014 09:19

Fest

Very few people ever get to buy on the low and sell at the top, a 15% strike range at either end is seen as a good result.

I entirely agree with Mr B's comment, they will seek to stifle it, a rising price just encourages more buys.

Even Mr B himself may be cashing in on the recent large chunk bought in the 40's.
I'm not suggesting he is or have any clue about that, I just treat it as a possibility, as a quick trade and gamble that he could get more on a tick back.

Like him I know for sure funds are very slow to react, the finance comment will put a glint in their eye.

A quite from LB some time back at a PI presentation.

I stopped talking about to funds about the water, it's just too confusing for them to understand. It took me months, so a few questions in a quick presentation was never going to get them there.

[stupidboypike] 06/10/2014 09:06

Just realised barrel of water not the same as barrel of oil. Therefore we are getting 37.4m barrels per year. My conservative "fag packet" goes up to 66p per share for the cold water. Best regards SBP

[mister big] 06/10/2014 09:05

In respect of price it's important to remember that this is a rigged market at best - mm caught short of short will not push prices higher. Also if institutional demand on the way they keep it low .
I like the comment about averaging up - we will see this at £1.25p but only when the larger buyers arrive .