Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[cyberbub] 16/4/2014 12:36

If all 5 plants are now working full tilt, a 6th coming up, and the company is starting to generate reliable and consistent cashflows, I wonder whether Iofina might start to consider declaring a maiden dividend for the current year?I know that they naturally want to retain cash for rolling out more plants, but paying out a small 1p per share divi would not cost too much, and would be a massive statement about the company's confidence.Any thoughts?

[cyberbub] 16/4/2014 12:28

I haven't had any response from Iofina IR about my email from last night (which I posted up), re Lance's holdings... anyone else contacted them?

[superg1] 16/4/2014 12:20

Yes......... the power of the web and the network, quite unnerving at times.

[captain_kurt] 16/4/2014 12:17

"These two measures will definitely impact mining companies operating in the country, such as Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile . "

[che7win] 16/4/2014 12:09

Joe,
Your eye was on the ball when these went to 50p and you bought near lows, some missed that bargain.

[awolagain] 16/4/2014 12:07

Superg1...the way things are going it might be again....very soon! I will getting further updates on his day and where he is heading to....will keep all in the loop...hope he understands our need to keep an 'eye' on him lol!

[joestalin] 16/4/2014 12:00

I do not have the time that you seem to have Masurenguy - how about an executive summary for us?

[masurenguy] 16/4/2014 11:59

Zendo102 - 19099: Sorry Festario, Lance is obliged to disclose. The company is incorporated in England and Wales, and so as a major shareholder, he should notify when crossing 3% or any whole percentage above - either buying or selling.

Good to see that someone else here has got their eye on the ball !

[masurenguy] 16/4/2014 11:56

JoeStalin - 19096: Masurenguy - you have clearly gone to a lot of trouble to construct post 19088. What exactly is your point? Are you peeving about the fact that rich people very rarely work for their money?

What utter tosh - how on earth do you arrive at such an absurd conclusion? The point that I was making in that post was crystal clear if you took the trouble to read it properly !

[zendo102] 16/4/2014 11:55

Sorry Festario, Lance is obliged to disclose. The company is incorporated in England and Wales, and so as a major shareholder, he should notify when crossing 3% or any whole percentage above - either buying or selling. Those are the rules. It doesn't matter if he was working for the company or not. That's why an RNS was issued when Arron Banks crossed 3%. Lance's position needs clarifying.

[superg1] 16/4/2014 11:49

Awol

Those were the days.................

[festario] 16/4/2014 11:48

If Lance has sold half his holding, during the time he was not obliged to disclose, then it proves only one thing.That he is much smarter than me, (not difficult I hear you cry).But it also means that he has a lot of cash available with which to buy more shares, to increase his holding to a higher level for the same outlay.

[joestalin] 16/4/2014 11:47

Masurenguy - you have clearly gone to a lot of trouble to construct post 19088. What exactly is your point?
Are you peeving about the fact that rich people very rarely work for their money?

[angel of the north] 16/4/2014 11:47

IOF prefer Thursdays for announcements - will we get an early Easter Egg tomorrow? Will my beloved Blunderland beat Man City tonight?....answers on a post card.

[bryproj] 16/4/2014 11:46

V.interesting indeed. Perhaps those in the know feel that IOF represents v.good value at the current price?

[superg1] 16/4/2014 11:45

Water rules from the Montana site

Permit Criteria- New Applications

? Water is physically and legally available
? Use will not adversely affect prior existing
water rights – Involves Public Notices
? Diversion, construction, and operation are
adequate
? Beneficial use
? Possessory interest in place of use

Point 1 already declared in an rns.

Point 2 Public notice period. Challenges are rare, we are talking the Missouri, so unlikely and IOF are downstream of around 99% of prior permits so can't possibly affect them.

Point 3 Already declared in the rns

Point 4 Beneficial use, the use for fracking which is entirely legal, under the rules and they have the letters of intent from buyers.

Point 5 is just a legal declaration point as below


36.12.1802 PERMIT AND CHANGE APPLICATIONS - POSSESSORY INTEREST

(1) An applicant or a representative shall sign the application affidavit to affirm the following:

(a) the statements on the application and all information submitted with the application are true and correct;


So when I say it must be beneficial use it's because of the criteria listed as above.

Point 1 and 3 are done, point 5 is just a legal point.

Point 2 is to do with public notices after issue.

That leaves beneficial use, which clearly fits what IOF have applied for.

Hence I hope the above helps explain where I fail to see that if it went to a hearing how IOF would not get the permit. There is nothing that I can see in the rules that would stop them. With just beneficial use left, the only logical conclusion is that the bureau don't think the customers and use are real. That's when it becomes stupid, as who would want to build a dust gathering depot. IMO it's just to do with the amount requested that is the sticking point, and the bureau can issue for less if they see fit, IOF can contest that if they want too.

[phoenixs] 16/4/2014 11:38

I am not saying it will happen but what if
1) the water permit is granted on Friday(market closed)
2) the statement (Tuesday?) says that IOF are producing at 2mt/day

??

[awolagain] 16/4/2014 11:37

A little birdie tells me MR.B might be on M/Y M4 tucked up in White House Bay... St Kitts
Must ask him later...lol!

[masurenguy] 16/4/2014 11:34

I didn't pose the question relating to "why he has turned up" here !

[superg1] 16/4/2014 11:31

Masure

Easy answer re why he has turned up. He thinks he can make good money on what he sees as a great business

[superg1] 16/4/2014 11:25

I think Mr B dropped a big enough hint re his confidence and forecasts.

If the water permit is awarded then it should take a decent chunk out of the gap.

I do wonder if some hope for a move to a hearing at these prices hoping for a double shot at cheap iodine shares.

The fact is as explained before I would be amazed that the end result even if it went to a hearing would result in no permit awarded.

Even then they still have a water business option, which no one else is the area has or perhaps the US has.

I still can't see how legally the bureau could refuse them at a hearing. As demonstrated the vast majority of recent hearings ended up as permit awarded. Some failures were down to the water not legally being available. That point has already been covered in news.

'The Board is pleased to announce that the DNRC has determined that the requested amount of water is both physically and legally available and that there would be no adverse effect at the point of diversion due to the engineering and design consideration outlined in the engineering study.'

Beneficial use seems to be the outstanding point and the amount of water. However to me the point of are the customers legitimate, is nuts.

Why would anyone spend all the money, and build a depot with virtual customers, if you haven't got the demand you simply wouldn't go into the business.

If the bureau are worried re the amount, that seems a weak excuse too. They can issue for less, but also issue for the full amount and if not all sold, they can reduce the amount (use it of lose it)

Legally available was the big point (sufficient allocation left for the river basin/area in question). Some are refused as the applications are for closed, water fully appropriated, areas.

[alphacharlie] 16/4/2014 11:17

Fair does to Shonny - that's about right for trading days- a penny a day to get to £1 by June 10th, but where he's wrong is it CAN happen.

[uppompeii] 16/4/2014 11:07

Veru....it is if he means trading days, weekends and bank holidays don't count..

[phoenixs] 16/4/2014 11:03

Shonny,
Did you take the bet with Mr Big? I am only wondering!