Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[che7win] 03/3/2014 08:44

Makday,
As soon as he speaks the share goes up, just ignore, he's probably trying to close his latest underwater short.

P/E this year less than 13, next year less than 8 according to GMP against growth of 35-45%.

[johncsimpson] 03/3/2014 08:31

SHONNY, have you got a prediction for Sunderland v Man City L. C. Final?

[nellyb] 03/3/2014 08:21

you did that friday.

[shonny] 03/3/2014 08:17

Normal service being resumed here today. I think I can safely predict a red close.

[superg1] 03/3/2014 07:29

Bob

Since water was thought about things have changed. Hot water wasn't in play back then but it has been found to produce better results than cold.

The cut for IOF back then was looking like 30 to 50 cents pb on cold. Obviously it depends if they JV or not on how much revenue they got if they end up with a water business.

The difference form the low to the high (hot $6) in terms of revenue is 100k bpd v 5k bpd.

Bob Shaver the expert thought it would hit 3 billion gallons of use in 2013, but reports say 5 billion, then maintenance water, not previously thought about is featuring. In some areas they are now talking water flooding to force out the oil, an old method returning.

So in just a few years the actual going on is more diverse and greater than first anticipated, and as we know illegal extraction has been going on, along with rights owners extracting more than the allowance. Big fines have been implemented.

They talk of 30,000 to 50,000 wells total in the Bakken, but that figure was around before they realised the 3 forks is charged with oil, not water as they first thought.

[johncsimpson] 02/3/2014 23:02

Ist with the find again GoBigRed . . .

[gobigred303] 02/3/2014 22:25

A couple new pics of IO5 have made their way onto the site. Looks like quite a few workers on site, final section of towers about to be set in place.

[bobsworth] 02/3/2014 21:13

Big Thanks Noli - much appreciated

[noli] 02/3/2014 21:09

Bobsworth
1) It was in the end IOF's decision, if iof went for the 200k bpd then it could take 2 years so iof decided to go for 1 x 80k in montana. With further applications to follow once awarded. The rules also state only 1 x permit at a time.

2) 3 x depots are for 3 seperate application, as we stand, 1 permit applied for = 1 depot at this time.

3) None, iof would need to apply for another permit of 80k bpd imho.

4+5) Companies are not allowed to take water from Montana to ND unless form 606 has been applied for and granted.

[meadow2] 02/3/2014 19:55

naphar, I understand your scepticism but, from the update of 3rd Feb which states that IOF is in an "ongoing dialogue with the DNRC", I'm optimistic that an early announcement will come within, or shortly after, 30 days from now.

[naphar] 02/3/2014 19:21

Meadow, hope you're right, but based on time lines so far, I'll believe it when I see it.

[meadow2] 02/3/2014 18:32

naphar
In view of the immediate news after the engineering information and the further requirements ref water customers, I think that an rns of some sort is almost a certainty within days after submission of final addendum and letters of intent. I only hope that it will be good news. Bearing in mind how quickly the authorities advised IOF of the engineering and design agreement, I see little reason for further delay by the decision makers.

[bobsworth] 02/3/2014 18:28

superg1
Thanks for the insight into the profitability of water hot or cold.
Not bad for a non core part of the business!

Can I ask some questions please:

1. The original talk was of a 200,000 b/d application. Can you explain why this ended up as an 80,000 b/d application? Was it Iofina's decision or was it at the request of the water board?
2. Is it right that the Montana water board wants 3 distribution depots rather than the 1 depot submitted by Iofina?
3. If 80,000 is granted what are the chances this could be upgraded at a later stage to 200,000 b/d?
4. Can you explain why Montana would allow water right sales of their water to North Dakota. If this turns out to be the case then whats in it for the state of Montana?
5. If Montana water sales to North Dakota are approved will this mean the 80,000 size application with be increased by the Montana water board.

TIA

[superg1] 02/3/2014 18:13

Interestingly an oil company is excited about some potential 'prolific oil', in and around where IOF are in OK with iodine plants. It would be nice if true, and it turns up some good iodine concentrations.

Sorry to be vague but I want to check if there are any small public companies in the area first. The company involved intend to expand on the details this week.

I know there is one AIM company at least in OK but over to the East.

[naphar] 02/3/2014 17:49

Meadow
it's 30 days left to submit the info. Then I assume it will need to be reviewed, so I am not personally expecting a decision within 30 days, but would hope for an rns saying that the info has been submitted, and maybe even that they expect a response within X days/weeks.

[meadow2] 02/3/2014 16:58

Well, only 30 days(at most) to hear definitive news of the water permit, but not necessarily the final outcome!

[superg1] 02/3/2014 16:07

And one more.

80k bpd at $5-$6 pb for hot water. $146m to $175m per year.

Armstrong quote $2.10 opex for heating pb plus the 20 cents we hear of pb to extract the river water.

Call it $3 pb opex, $2 to $3 profit. $58m to $87m profit before tax.

No one is expecting 80k bpd for hot, and we don't know if they will do hot water, or if the permit will allow transfer into ND, which the permit mentioned doesn't allow.

So that's why it's a wait and see, will they do hot, and if not, how much cold they can sell, will their permit allow transfer of water into ND.

First we have to see if they get the permit (I think they will), and perhaps what had been mentioned by others (transfer of water into ND)is on the cards. The rules certainly allow it. All that happens is the burden of proof of the beneficial use goes up.

[superg1] 02/3/2014 15:42

Just a point.


Over the last 12 months or so they issued emergency measures to meet the demand.

An allowance that rights holders, with irrigation rights, could temporarily downgrade the use of their water (against the rules)to service the high demand in the oil industry.

Those temporary allowances will be withdrawn.

[superg1] 02/3/2014 15:10

Hippo

As said it's a change it stance from saying IOF will never get the permit, to an admission that they will.

Iodine sells worldwide, SQM have customers for all of their, Sirocco struggled on costs and supply timelines so had to discount their prices.

That's the nature of business. That permit states it's for use in the locality of the point of extraction. IOF quote in news they will be selling water to go to various locations.

You see the game, they tried their best to say the permit would never come, but now they think it is, it's just about trying to destroy the credibility once more.

The price hasn't taken off expecting the water permit. That permit was in play pre the main boom, but then if you check, the Bakken comments talk of 30,000 to 50,000 wells going forward. That was before they knew about the 3 forks which looks set to double reserves.

If they get the permit, we can worry about how much revenue they get once the permit arrives. If the permit comes, IOF may tell us if the sales will include hot water, it makes a big difference but we work off cold for now.

The bureau could issue a permit for less water as shown in the rules. Until it all unfolds it's guesswork.

But to repeat, it sounds like an Ennis admission that they think the permit will be awarded.

[superg1] 02/3/2014 14:56

Alpha

40S-2030048631 isn't anything to so with IOF as you may know.


Tesco's may have more sales than co-op but that's down to having more customers. IOF list customers and the 100k bpd from Halliburton for Montana is still current.

So until things are in place who is to say what can be sold.

Interesting though that the slant from the balcony is not about the permit being refused, but about potential sales.

Working from memory (apols if wrong), under that permit, there is a stipulation that no water can be taken into ND. I seem to recall reading up on that permit and all the circs some time back.

So Macca (our ennis man), is he now saying the permit will be awarded. If so I agree.

What happens re revenues after that is guesswork, as it depends on whether they do hot water, 15k bpd of hot water gives roughly the same revenue as cold at 80k bpd and the profit margin isn't a lot different either looking at heating costs pb on sites I've looked at ($2.10 pb Armstrong)

IOF say they have letters of intent to buy water, and they have the deal with Halliburton.

The share price doesn't really reflect water and no note accounts for it. In fact many believe it isn't coming, or has been rejected etc.

So nice to see a few more agree it is coming.

[the mellow hippo] 02/3/2014 14:32

Supposed paid researcher or not what does the content in the link he refers to suggest and does it have merit that's all that matters