Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[mister big] 15/12/2014 14:32

Super g - agree the market seems intent on giving the stock away,
Even half way up a less than snowy market I feel like a go !!!

[joeblogg2] 15/12/2014 14:17

Also, I think there is rollover for spread bets which might be casuing a few to close?

[superg1] 15/12/2014 14:15

Joe

I suspect so. I mentioned the other day that I watch other linked shares. Fum has had unusual sells this morning so yes someone else caught on a margin I suspect, or covering to avoid a margin call.

The oil stocks are heavily followed, with the chaos there in recent weeks, the knock on effect was always going to hit hard. Not ignoring the position of IOF re no news of iodine production etc and delays caused by objections on water

My guess for production would be in the 100 to 140mt range for the quarter.

On the flip side those sitting on hands can get more shares for there intended amount to invest.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 15/12/2014 14:15

Oh don't say SCRUTABLE is at it again...

[bogg1e] 15/12/2014 14:13

SG, you know me, im only a low grade researcher but good at compiling data and putting together "easy to read" docs (I was a writer of various sorts for years - bit of journalism, technical writing, business document translating etc). If you want to send me the notes i would be happy to write up the report for you.

[freshvoice] 15/12/2014 14:13

Yet another excuse!

[joeblogg2] 15/12/2014 14:08

Looks like more margin calls as share price dives again?

[superg1] 15/12/2014 14:05

Spike

It's already sorted for all my findings to be available in a report.

I don't think they will need me, Halliburton know how much water they want and they would be the ones Mr Carlisle would have to prove to be lying.

He is just desperate to protect his business which will probably go under if IOF's depots appeared.

I've already asked around re the guy. The depot is rubbish and apparently he is hated by the locals.

With all the details I would think it would be wise for him to withdraw if a hearing was listed. I suspect he would be the stubborn type perhaps oblivious to the own goal he may score.

It's a bit daft really as if anyone agreed with him then his permit should be rescinded in the next review.

[neddo] 15/12/2014 13:05

a very unhappy xmas too you nuts.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 15/12/2014 12:57

GKP is not one I follow much these days Steve, used to, then realised it was dead long before the crowd. In fact around the 250 levels. I pop on now and again but it's not one I watch, and hardly ever know the share price

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 15/12/2014 12:48

This chart's starting to look less bullish, 20's soon here too? Same thing over on XEL, and QFI... what days.

[obbig60] 15/12/2014 12:45

My modest topup at 31.7p earlier today appeared in the sell column. So once again they are trying to con us that there are more sells than buys!

[spike_1] 15/12/2014 12:25

sg - My thanks also for all this invaluable work.

Question - it is only invaluable IF it is available to IOF, AND they have someone who understands it as well as you do!

Is there a case for you going over there (at IOF's expense) if this gets to appeal?

Best wishes - Mike

[rhwillcoll] 15/12/2014 10:52

Thank you Superg1: brilliant stuff. So he is in effect telling the water bureau that their department is not required any more, that they may as well all pack up and go home, make their staff redundant etc, as there is more than sufficient water available in Montana? I'm sure the DNRC will appreciate that!

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

All we have that looks like a potentially valid point is the reference to beneficial use. That is another matter already tested by the bureau, but Carlisle comes at it from a different angle.

The content of his objection is basically this.

There are plenty of depots to supply the amount needed, we don't need another one. If you allow it then my business will be devalued.

[superg1] 15/12/2014 10:22

On those objections, it's always a worry as to what they might contain but we have been lucky enough to view the content in full.

Having done that, it's just plain old sods law that it's delayed things, but that's all it is a delay in the full award of the permit.

The one from the town of Culbertson is full of irrelevant junk, I can't find anything in that where it could be deemed valid under the objection criteria list.

The wildlife one has no relevant content either, they objected against the Culbertson depot using the same topic, it was deemed not valid.

Mr Carlisle of the Culbertson depot, I assume aged 71 from his comments, is simply throwing in fiction to try and protect his own business. It won't work it will fail miserably. his facts can be torn apart with great ease as posted before. They aren't even facts.

His claim re legal availability opens with an admission that it is legally available. The bureau determine how much water is legally available that's why that issue never came up in the first hearing.

Adverse effect is to do with Mr Carlisle being able to withdraw his allocation. He is upstream and that's why his permit isn't listed on the determination to grant.

Adverse effect isn't about affecting his margins or income. He talks of big margins. Going back to another application, there was an LOI saying that water available was too expensive so that would welcome the Ames depot. It was granted. I believe Culbertson was one of the first depots, so in theory he was the expensive guy.

Diversion has already been binned in the first hearing, that won't change. He worked it was possible to extract the amount, but on further reading all he has to consider is that it is not impossible.


All we have that looks like a potentially valid point is the reference to beneficial use. That is another matter already tested by the bureau, but Carlisle comes at it from a different angle.

The content of his objection is basically this.

There are plenty of depots to supply the amount needed, we don't need another one. If you allow it then my business will be devalued.

There is no case for protecting his business, so it boils down to the first line.

His 'facts' are not facts, they can easily be shown to be untrue as already demonstrated.

I note nobody objected to his diversion and ability to supply, but iof you take one truck (120 Barrels) pulling in, hooking up, fill up, unhook and exit to be 15 minutes. That means his depot flat out could do 8 trucks per hour from his 2 pumps.

That is 23,000 barrels per day supply capability, yet his permit is for 39,000 barrels per day.

He supplied letters of intent (contracts) for 48,000 bpd, about twice of what he can feasibly supply, and 9000 barrels more than he is allowed to supply.

If the guys he is signed with honour their contracts there is nothing left for anyone else to buy. That theme continues across the depots. The water contracts outweigh the water available in rights.

So how can he claim there is plenty of water and it is not needed. Halliburton can't contract with anyone as it's all taken up. Halliburton do not appear in LOIs in any other of the depots he mentions.

Thinking of it another way. If he is right and the depots have plenty of water, then there is no need to issue any other type of permit for irrigation or otherwise. So any farmer wanting an irrigation permit taking his view should be forced to purchase water from a depot as their demand is not needed as plenty of water is available.

The reverse is actually happening in ND where the farmers are selling to the oil industry.

Every individual in the US is entitled to a water permit. If water is legally available where they want it, and they have a qualifying and proven use for it.

Halliburton have said we need the water, they will have a mass of evidence as to why they need it, details that will prove Mr Carlisle is making it up.

He is making it up as he quotes higher numbers to get his permit, then lower numbers to object to someone else to show they don't need it.

The guy will be made to look a complete fool if it ever gets that far. He has no case, it's just a pain in the backside disruption nothing more.

[superg1] 15/12/2014 07:57

Monty no idea. Until those those that objected reply or not to the deficiency letters they received we don't know.

The cut off date is 15 days from when a letter is sent plus about a week to allow for late post that has a postmark within the 15 days. The bureau quote 7 days internally as the safety factor.

So 22 days form letters received. So nothing will be known before xmas in theory unless they all reply in quick time.

2 as you know I dismiss completely as they are not facts or relevant to the water laws.

The 3rd one is full of misrepresentation and are just random numbers, in some cases twisted numbers. The bureau don't check facts they simply let the applicant prove/contest points raised. If they did check facts then Ames wouldn't have his depots imo.

What some forget is that the water permit law is about ensuring every US citizen has access to water if they meet the criteria.

IOF will prove they need it, as they have already done. If the demand wasn't there they wouldn't waste money spending millions on a depot that big.

Back to the Bob Shaver comment on the local news

If the applicant meets the criteria by law they HAVE to award it.

That's it, it is as simple as that. They will get the permit.

An interesting media story popped up over the weekend and it sums up the situation in eastern Montana. If the infrastructure was in place they would see growth. Those existing depots are corner shops which are of no use to the likes of Halliburton.

[rogerbridge] 15/12/2014 07:47

MM, you may be able to afford a gold toaster in a couple of weeks.

[stevo2011] 15/12/2014 07:46

Take a bow

[19bells] 14/12/2014 23:02

No idea19B

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 14/12/2014 18:42

Why do posters feel the need to add their avatar initials to compositions? It's really quite tiresome and totally unnecessary, kindly desist.

ACT