Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[richi_rich13] 25/11/2014 08:59

I have just done a quick internet search and it appears that SG1 is right on this. The form (611) objectors have to fill out is:



It clearly states that facts must be provided, and only these facts can be used for an objection. It asks which water permit will be affected by this (i.e. they much already have one, I just cant launch an objection) and they have to disprove one of the 6 criteria already deemed met by the previous hearing.

I will be interested to see how the DNRC handles this. Their guidance is 90 days from objection deadline to hearing and then 90 days from the hearing to final decision (so 6 months). A further appeal is then allowed to contest this decision to the district court (no time frame given).

I hope that this is deemed to not be a valid objection, however seeing how wary they have been in awarding this permit, I expect it to go all the way. I would also not be surprised if the objector is getting a nice payment from someone (ie hedge fund) to keep this running since every time there is a set back they share takes a huge hit.
So although I agree with SG1 on the process, I disagree that the time frames will not be affected by this. This could take well over a year.

[madchick] 25/11/2014 08:45

Not even the iodine business is priced in! Interesting about the postmark. I guess this means that they will have to wait about 7 days after Dec 1st to ensure no other objections before proceeding to decide whether they are valid or not.

[microcline] 25/11/2014 08:43

Where do George and Gary live now?

[superg1] 25/11/2014 08:37

Micro

Possible but that would make it a invalid objection as you have to identify your interest locally and how it affects you.

[rogerbridge] 25/11/2014 08:36

We were bound to receive an objection and I m surprised there are not more. IOF's plans will affect some of the smaller operators.
The criteria for hearings is valid objections and this objection may not be valid.
IOF have been though a hearin and all questions and objections have been answered satisfactorily.
The need for water is vital for the industry and IOF will supply, even if there is a short term hold up.
I am a long term investor here and what the share price does in the short term does not bother me. Having said that I will be pleased when it improves,the water business is not priced in and we are cash positive.
Some more fortunate investors will have a chance to invest at this price level.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 08:32

Re the date of the objection. The laws have a rule of post marks. EG if an objection was received after the 1st but postmarked 1st it's arrived on time.

So the date is probably the date of the objection was sent/written then received late last week/yesterday.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 08:27

Bocker

What such events do confirm is that IOF were right to cease putting out monthly updates due to the headless chickens that are always present on any share with a bit of a following.

Most sells so far are probably folk who ere looking to cash in on permit awarded and nothing to do with long term investment.

It could well be awarded if the objection isn't valid. If not, it will be awarded post hearing.

Long back I said there was no way going on the legal side of things that IOF could be refused the permit. The point being that there are countless permits that have been awarded under the same criteria that IOF had met.

That logic turned out to be spot on, as in the IOF evidence they listed permits awarded under the same circumstances and the hearing examiner entirely agreed that all criteria were met.

Unfortunately and rather pointlessly due to the processes even if Joe Bloggs used and identical objection to the bureau word for word then a hearing would have to follow, which obviously would fail miserably.

Having read the PTDG and hearing outcome the chances of success by someone changing the ruling are virtually zero.

Either way hearing or not it won't change the timeline for a depot.

[microcline] 25/11/2014 08:27

Want the share price lower? Just place in an objection to the DNRC. Easy. Wouldn’t put it past some of the low lives in this market.

[joeblogg2] 25/11/2014 08:23

Dissappointing and hopefully super's analysis is correct but it is the iodine business first and foremost and anything else will be a bonus!!

[che7win] 25/11/2014 08:20

Valid objection or not, it doesn't change when the water plant would be built, best to wait for the company to update us.

[bocker01] 25/11/2014 08:14

It was probably put together about the time of the last price drop down to 33p. That was simple manipulation. Not as though IOF is going bust with 7.5m in the bank in Sept and growing. could easily be shorters up up another game. Just like before. Probably they did not calculate how slow Montana is to do anything and missed the boat on timing it to coincide with the last raid. Anyway as SG says, there are no valid reasons to object. Time wasting and boring.

[cyberbub] 25/11/2014 08:13

This is disappointing, but I would urge IOF investors not to bombard the DNRC with emails and even phone calls. They are just following their procedures.Far better to wait for the official RNS probably sometime next week to find out more details on the objection and whether it is valid or vexatious, and what the position is.Remember that just the Iodine business is worth substantially more than the current market cap, and the company has plenty of cash to keep expanding in future.NAI

[superg1] 25/11/2014 07:42

Unlikely ammons but yes there is only one box.

I have been tracking all permits, permit number 30068954 got an objection in late October and the hearing box was updated for a hearing.

As yet the IOF permit has not had a date for a hearing added.

Objections automatically create a hearing date if they are valid. IOF have that covered as they have already been through the process and have all the evidence.

Now it's case of watching for the hearing date to change to a future date. If it does it's probably qualifies as a valid objection.

Even if a valid objection is identical to one the bureau raised, they could still record it as a valid objection and create a hearing

The person objecting has to provide the evidence to make it valid.

That's why potentially even if valid, it's a paper exercise.

That's why IOF put that a valid objection is unlikely, as it is potentially a waste of time by the objector as they have covered all the points in great detail. We can see from the PDTG document that they covered the legal aspects in great detail.

[ammons] 25/11/2014 07:33

Wonder how many zillion emails and phone calls will be sent trying to find out who objected? Might be more than one for all we know.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 07:24

Owenga

The objection criteria are identical to that already contested by the bureau and proved as not relevant by IOF.

A paper exercise at best even if the objection is deemed valid.

[superg1] 25/11/2014 07:22

It's an 'objection received' box, so I take it that they do a review to see if it is a valid objection.

If it's a valid objection the hearing box date will change to a future date, it hasn't done so at this time.

[owenga] 25/11/2014 03:14

I wonder if it has been deemed a valid objection yet, or it has just been logged as an objection subject to review?

[owenga] 25/11/2014 03:10

Dated 19 november

[hurricane.] 24/11/2014 20:38

The idiot heartwell still in the room lol

[festario] 24/11/2014 18:54

It didn't Neddo, it was a spurious Uncrossing Trade at 43p, all other trades went through within a higher spread.
IOF held on to the majority of Friday's gain.
We often see these artificially high or low UT's on this share, and also OXS and QFI which I hold.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 24/11/2014 18:52

Because it's worth £10m, and the iodine business is worth £25m. There is no gas or oil business.

Nice sentence Hurricane?

[neddo] 24/11/2014 18:42

if it's worth double the sp, why has it dropped 2p today?

[engelo] 24/11/2014 17:01

4 more trading days....