Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bobsworth] 25/6/2013 14:53

Expect we will get a few more RNS's confirming significant Iofina PLC Holding(s) in Company

[the fat controller] 25/6/2013 14:50

dragonsteeth,
CF said at the AGM that the brine they receive from the the Oil Co's contains oil, and he quoted an instance this week where it was a substantial amount, 200bbls. But he said, it was not good for relationships to skim it off and sell it, particularly if it was substantial quantities. Large volumes block the ISOrb unit, which need flushing out, and waste " a couple of hours".

Hope that helps.

TFC

[croc8] 25/6/2013 14:39

Boggle

The Mississippi Lime is a geological formation, not a geographical site. It extends under OK.

[diggulden] 25/6/2013 14:32

IO2 is in Alva, Oklahoma. IO3 has been confirmed as being close to IO2.

[testuser123] 25/6/2013 14:29

Bogg1e: google maps refs included.
IO1 - texas: 32.534564, -97.425858
IO2 - oklahoma: 36.694836, -98.594086

[roboben] 25/6/2013 14:22

Chesapeake is the name of an oil company

[dragonsteeth] 25/6/2013 14:17

I believe that IO2 is in Oklahoma i.e. Mississippian.

[bogg1e] 25/6/2013 14:12

In spite of copious notes, i cant find anywhere which states whether it is IO1 or IO#2 which is already on the mississippi lime area, which isn't even in Mississippi! I thought IO2 was in chesapeake, but thats in Virginia! Im confused.

[ramu kumar] 25/6/2013 14:10

We appeared to have settled and I'd like thank all the regular contributors for their measured and responsible posts yesterday.

[dragonsteeth] 25/6/2013 13:54

pigeon, I'm intrigued by your suggestions re "oil skim" , can you produce any figures you've seen ?
My understanding is that the separation process at the site would reduce the oil in water to "ppm" levels . This is not a difficult process and clearly the oil companies are not going to let large quantities of oil disappear from site.
Usually after that there may be a legislative environmental requirement to reduce the oil ppm level further but that is not something that would usually recover vast quantities of oil.

Can you clarify where you get your 1 % from , as that is a large amount for oil companies to release, particularly as in the Mississippian you get higher water to oil ratios ? ta.

[square1] 25/6/2013 13:52

Yesterday's 'flash crash' was indeed caused by the forced selling of a large spread position-I believe about 1 million shares. This indiscriminate selling then produced further margin and stop loss related selling in a generally v weak market. It does highlight the need IMO of leaving large buffers in place to protect positions if that's what you want rather than just topping up or removing xs margin. Managing leveraged positions is very important and especially so in stocks where the order book is rarely deep on either side.

[noli] 25/6/2013 13:49

pigeon, there are two parts to the story here, swd's via an operator and swd via commercial. IOF get skim oil from the plants, also iof were discussing having a commercial SWD site where they could take all brine with iodine and without it, different charges would apply. However when discussed it was possible iof could offer free disposal costs when iodine was contained within the brine and charge the others, oil skim would be iof's, these guys in charge are on the ball, they dont miss much at all.

Hope that helps.

[testuser123] 25/6/2013 13:41

Oh BTW over the weekend someone (bugle?) posted regarding Iochem and why IOf reckon they can't expand.

Assuming IOF are right I reckon the issue isn't use of Cl2/SO2 in the process, it's the onsite storage requirements (33 tonnes of Sulphur Dioxide & 40 tonnes of Chlorine, each stored in a single pressurised liquid tank).

In April 1999 the US EPA changed their guidance for modelling some toxic gases in pressurised liquid states as research had shown they could form ground level clouds (see the snapily titled "Technical Background for Offsite Consequence Analysis for Anhydrous Ammonia, Aqueous Ammonia, Chlorine, and Sulfur Dioxide" : hxxp://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/chem/backup.pdf ). This vastly increased what would be considered the "danger zone" around these materials in case of accident. Note which substances the guidance covers.

In March 2000 Iochem had to file a risk management plan with the EPA. Modelling the worst case scenario (failure of the SO2 tank) using the new guidance showed a toxic end point (minimum distance where most people will survive for an hour) of 17 miles downwind (see hxxp://toxicrisk.com/reports/20779/summary.htm ).

The Iochem plant (36.144444, -99.241389) is about 3 miles east of the town of Vici (population 700 in the 2010 census, may have increased since due to the fraccing boom). Given the towns proximity I don't think the EPA would allow the plant if it was a new build. The massive size of the area at risk will presumably make it very hard for them to build anywhere else either.

[ammons] 25/6/2013 13:27

They are an iodine producing company. That is the main focus. They can't do everything. Skimmed oil? What about the iodine?

[24ricardo] 25/6/2013 13:26

At least we made the nationals this am concerning yesterday's fun and games.

A significant point was the amount of SB,s that helped cause the move.

hxxp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/markets/article3799496.ece

[spike_1] 25/6/2013 13:20

pigeon: At the AGM Chris said that generally there is very little oil and yes, currently they give it back. He didn't seem to think it was much of an issue in terms of lost revenue, and was good PR.

Best wishes - Mike

[joeblogg2] 25/6/2013 13:16

Hi test. I seem to recall the same regarding the skimming at the AGM to ensure a decent relationship IOF return the oil.

[worraps] 25/6/2013 13:14

retiree.....thanks, nice words from L. He must be a good fella to have that sentiment.

[testuser123] 25/6/2013 13:02

Pidgeon,

You have to remember that in terms of the piped brine installations, the O&G companies previously did their own disposal, and their own skimming. IOF are inserting themselves in this process and, whilst theoretically they own any skimmed oil it is not deemed politicaly savvy to keep it.

My understanding anyway. Happy to hear alternate views.

[worraps] 25/6/2013 12:53

Regarding Lance's resignation, I can only believe that it was a fairly last minute decision, which had to be announced before they would have liked to have, due to the AGM resolutions and votes. Lance must be passionate about IOF, to have brought it so far, and worked all the hours he did, so I firmly believe that he would want to see his replacement as soon as possible, and given different circumstances, (ie, no AGM), he would have ensured a replacement was already lined up to hand in hand with the announcement of his resignation.

I know all this has already been covered, but I feel strongly that behind the scenes, Lance will be pulling lots of strings to get his replacement as soon as possible, so that things can recover, and can carry on where he left off, and progress in the way that he planned.

I don't know about a large forced seller on IG yesterday, but yesterday was very extreme, even for AIM. It didn't make any sense. I still feel that 'hidden forces', are positioning for something, yet to be revealed. Things are too good here for what happened.

[pigeon1] 25/6/2013 12:52

I am also thinking that if the IOF technology is something new when it comes to stripping water generally, and hence economically competitive when it comes to skim, then i see many more possible players who would be interested in acquiring this company.

Think of the possible upside to a big operator.