Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[croc8] 20/12/2013 15:47

Yes GDL does look pretty bad, but I'm not over on that thread slamming it.

[jackabite] 20/12/2013 15:46

Croc8

It's dead imo. I already explained why I though that.

[meadow2] 20/12/2013 15:36

Having read the conditions of application, it would seem that the Water Authority is willing to help applicants as far as it can. If Iofina's application fails then it is entirely up to the company. I feel that the odds are in Iofina's favour, but this is speculation on my part.

[n3tleylucas] 20/12/2013 15:34

This company is in denial mode.

[tsmith2] 20/12/2013 15:31

That was on the 13th, taking us to the 28

[tsmith2] 20/12/2013 15:30

Re: water permitWould expect some sort of update soonWater PermitIofina, specialists in the exploration and production of iodine and iodine specialty chemical derivatives, has received from the Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation ("DNRC") Water Resources Office, the determination of its water rights application. The determination states that the application did not meet certain criteria set out in state code 85-2-311.The application will require additional information, primarily with respect to offtake engineering and beneficial use of the water. The additional data required is being reviewed with the Company's retained consultants to enable the Company to respond to the DNRC within the 15 days allowed to schedule a follow up meeting to review the application.The Montana water project remains a non-core project within the Iofina portfolio of businesses.

[jackabite] 20/12/2013 15:26

festario

It's OK you saying that now but this is going to tank. That application was submitted to the best of their understanding with the full case for the water application.

They have not got some miraculous ace card up their sleeve what superpooh alluded too. It's done and finished.

This will fall sharply on confirmation of that so anyone in profit might want to consider solidifying that profit rather than gambling on that application being reversed.

[jointer13] 20/12/2013 15:22

1. Keyboard Warrior


1. A Person who, being unable to express his anger through physical violence (owning to their physical weakness, lack of bravery and/or conviction in real life), instead manifests said emotions through the text-based medium of the internet, usually in the form of aggressive writing that the Keyboard Warrior would not (for reasons previously mentioned) be able to give form to in real life.
2. The term is a combination of the word 'keyboard' (the main tool by which the person expresses his/her latent rage) and 'warrior' (due to the warrior-like aggression, tendency towards violence, headstrong nature and propensity towards brute force as a means of resolving conflict rather than more subtle means dependant on finesse).
3. The Keyboard Warrior seeks to use the power imbued in his 'weapon' to effect death and destruction (in a strictly-metaphorical sense) upon his foes (other virtual identities he has encountered on the internet). In essence, the keyboard (ie. text input ability) allows the keyboard warrior to manifest his true warrior nature in a safe and removed environment, from which no real-life repercussions .
4. Keyboard Warriors are generally identified by unneccessary rage in their written communications, and are regarded as 'losers' by other virtual identities on the internet

[nellyb] 20/12/2013 14:57

jack, are you same jack when you meet face to face?

[meadow2] 20/12/2013 14:24

superg1 - Well, at least, you admit in your post concerning the water permit that you are guessing. Is this progress? I still think that you assume far too much, let us await the facts.

[jointer13] 20/12/2013 14:19

awaiting towers











IO5 (17 Dec 2013)


Gallery Image

IO4 (17 Dec 2013)


Gallery Image
Gallery Image
Gallery Image

IO3


Gallery Image
Gallery Image
Gallery Image
Gallery Image

[square1] 20/12/2013 14:17

Certainty-no, ramu, there are no certainties in investment. I have however checked things as much as is possible.4 & 5 are awaiting towers, then 2 weeks to complete. I'm not predicting optimisation time but the more practice they get the faster that process gets. On the inventory I'm confident.

[ramu kumar] 20/12/2013 14:12

square1, do you know for certain the inventory will be shipped in Q1 2014, plants 4 & 5 will be up by mid Feb? It took them a year to get 1O3 commissioned and it's not even fully optimized!

[square1] 20/12/2013 13:58

Strangely enough I believe that things in reality are far better than they appear. The inventory that should have gone by YE will have cleared in the first qtr-it's already contracted just hasn't shipped and therefore not invoiced, giving a nice kick off to 2014. Plants 4 & 5 should be up by mid Feb and we'll hopefully start moving to outperformance of expectation. Depression remains the current sentiment so a contrarian has an opportunity. Just as Q1 saw over exuberance-many of us fell into the trap, so Q4 seems overly negative. Not making predictions, they're worthless but investment psychology moves v quickly-we've all witnessed that.

[norland1] 20/12/2013 13:57

Sold half my holding at 50% loss. Time and time again I have been caught out by aim shares and hope that I have learnt my lesson this time. Enjoy the thrill of investing but will stick to larger caps.(only 5% of aim shares become x baggers -better chance at the bookies.

[ramu kumar] 20/12/2013 13:57

simmy1699, not de-ramping - just saying it as I see it.

In the past I've been gullible and bought everything the BOD said. Not anymore and anybody who doesn't question and confirm figures and news will lose more money.

One's investment must be based on credible info, not nudges, winks, heresay - then you'll be forever waiting for the PING!

[rathlindri] 20/12/2013 13:46

savage week, just brutal

[naphar] 20/12/2013 13:45

SG, yes, there is some good stuff in those links, but you missed the point.

you and CK keep mentioning hearings. If the FAQ is the latest document, the up to date correct one, then we have 15 days to provide more data and arange a meeting (not a hearing), then the water board can decide to issue a PDTG if the info is sufficient, or maintain the PDTD if they are still not happy. If they maintain the PDTG, then the process goes to a hearing.

Point is, I am unsure which process is the correct one, and was hoping someone could clarify. I don't think there will be a hearing, unless the water board are still not happy with the additional info provided.

And as for your confidence level about it being granted, I am not so confident, and see it as a 50/50, primarily because we do not know the reasons for the PDTD, we only know the topic areas. Engineering issues can normally be corrected, beneficial use issues are more of a mystery for me.