Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 20/4/2014 08:37

Based on the information given so far and noted the news comments, legally available etc then this is what I think is the issue.

I have said all along I expect at least part of the permit to be awarded, simply because that is the law, legally available, beneficial use etc so they would have to award some of it.

In the hearings index here is an example on an entirely different topic but it covers the basic rules of some things raised with IOF.

Evidence must be presented to show why the amount of water
B-21.780 requested for use is necessary. Here, applicant did not prove the
amount of water requested for wildlife use was necessary and therefore beneficial. Evidence must show how pond use would benefit applicant or others. Here, the fish pond use is a beneficial use since fishing from the pond would improve campus life at the school.

In the same case

'The proposed flow rate cannot produce the volume of water requested
on the application. Volume reduced to 63.6 acre-feet.(FO)'


So to me and based on the Culbertson case the bureau clearly doubts that IOF could sell all of the water, hence the beneficial use criteria in their mind is not met for the entire amount applied for.

So having read these darn things to death, I take it the denial is simply to do with the amount and hence the case will go to a hearing due to the amount applied for.

The above example ended up with the permit awarded for the amount the bureau deemed needed.

So I expect there will be an award of the permit, but maybe for a lesser amount. Then it's down to IOF to sell that amount within 12 months and that will evidence the demand. It is pointless having an 80k bpd permit if you can't sell it all.

[superg1] 20/4/2014 08:16

I must say I don't get the 'priced in' comments as if it's a consideration that they sold the entire amount each year, then how is it priced in.

On the 20 cents costs surely 50 cents to 75 cents pb profit on cold, and quite a bit more for hot going on the suggested $5 to $6 pb going rates.

If that's right I should be picking up iodine shares next week for around 5p to 10p.

[superg1] 20/4/2014 08:11

bobbyshilling
19 Apr'14 - 16:20 - 19275 of 19279 2 0(premium)


Sg, reading the recent rns's on water, it would seem that the size of the permit is acceptable as the water is available and if it was an issue, it would have been discussed with DNRC and modified when we submitted the amended application. Also, I think I recall that the original 200000 bpd was deemed far too great, and that we downscaled to 80000bpd after advice from the authorities, as this was deemed a more appropriate amount and would be dealt with quicker.

I do hope that they tell us exactly why it was denied in the next rns, and hopefully Mr. Bellamy can add his expertise to the situation at the next stage.


Bobby to answer the above

'it would seem that the size of the permit is acceptable as the water is available and if it was an issue'

Legally available simply means that the amount if taken each year wouldn't put the total amount extracted beyond the limits of what they think that particular could cope with. E.G. there are some river basins where no more rights (some exceptions) will be awarded as the acceptable amount had been appropriated.


'I think I recall that the original 200000 bpd was deemed far too great, and that we downscaled to 80000bpd after advice from the authorities, as this was deemed a more appropriate amount and would be dealt with quicker.'

It wasn't about being far too great, but should have never been applied for in that way at all, that was imo a stupid mistake due to the 4000 acre feet rule, where the applicant has to do a huge amount of work to achieve the permit, work the bureau does if it's under that amount.

If it's awarded at the hearing then it will be a nice surprise for those that think it won't be achieved.

[rogerbridge] 19/4/2014 22:11

Not unexpected news about water,our new director should be able to guide IOF through the next stage of this process.
I hope that the results will draw a lime under the past events, we all not he results are not going to be good. However IOF are now producing iodine in large amounts and what I and most other long termers are looking for is increasing production and profitability. The chemical side should have done well.
Depending on the results and the future prospects in the rns, we may see market makers try to take out some stops and Hoover up some cheap shares. This would be a silly time for any holders to bail out, thought here could be a shorters attack.
I have this years ISA cash ready to pick up some cheap shares, should the price drop.
As an aside, in modern life it seems most public employees and politicians do not want to make decisions, the love of enquiries and special advisors lengthens decision processes. We will have to see what happens when Mr Bellamy, who is well versed in the system answers any queries.
Whatever happens here, IOF is surely well undervalued with IO1,2,3,4,5 and soon 6 all producing.

[battery] 19/4/2014 19:00

Owenga.Its published on the Montana water board site.http://www.dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_rts/appro_info/applications/application_status.asp?id=30066181

[owenga] 19/4/2014 18:09

How do we know it has been denied ?

[bobbyshilling] 19/4/2014 16:20

Sg, reading the recent rns's on water, it would seem that the size of the permit is acceptable as the water is available and if it was an issue, it would have been discussed with DNRC and modified when we submitted the amended application. Also, I think I recall that the original 200000 bpd was deemed far too great, and that we downscaled to 80000bpd after advice from the authorities, as this was deemed a more appropriate amount and would be dealt with quicker.

I do hope that they tell us exactly why it was denied in the next rns, and hopefully Mr. Bellamy can add his expertise to the situation at the next stage.

[superg1] 19/4/2014 16:09

If you compare decision makers to law decisions then every person that every get charged with any offence would be found guilty, criminal civil or otherwise.

Without further info from IOF I can't see why legally the judges wouldn't support their application. If the bureau are looking for a lesser amount to be awarded. IE they consider the amount is beyond what they could reasonably expect IOF could convert into sales for beneficial use.

So it may be up to IOF to accept a lesser amount. If you tried to go over 17 gallons per minute per acre for your irrigation use as an application, then the bureau would refuse it, even though it's a legal application as the amount goes over their 'rule-of thumb' allowance.

It's not about buoying enthusiasm re getting it or not, just plain facts as they seem to be under water laws.

Like Mr Big and others I think the share price for iodine is very cheap, so if some want to hand over their shares based on water, others are happy to take them.

[bocker01] 19/4/2014 15:54

SG are you saying that this application is for jam on the cake? and that we have water already (Fisheries swap etc)? That's always been my understanding but I am I wrong?

[superg1] 19/4/2014 15:49

Bobby

So they are allowed to break the rules by allowing irrigation water for use in the oil industry but won't issue a permit that meets the criteria.

It seems to me it's all about the size of the permit.

Of the last 10 hearings 8 were granted. One denied because the water wasn't legally available (already stated as available by IOF), and the other no doubt due to the fact the applicant and his legal advisors didn't turn up.

I know IOF think they will get it, as do I, but it's a bonus. If it takes longer then that's less cash they need now to build a water depot.

They have USFW rights swap deal to drop back onto, and their own water via a discharge permit.

[bocker01] 19/4/2014 15:48

Tha last water RNS stated: "In the event the application is denied the Group would request an immediate administrative hearing." When I read that at the time I concluded that the BOD regarded a hearing as the most likely next outcome - and were telling us that as diplomatically as poss. I am surprised that the some others appear to have a different view but I imagine the market would have drawn the same conclusion as me. Water isn't priced in. Maybe there'll be a little tree shake on Tuesday but not much more - unless people panic and I do not feel that people are anything other than inured to all this now. For the Department to wash its hands of the matter was predictable. They've passed the parcel in the time honoured fashion of govt. officials. Iodine on its own currently supports £1.25 share price

[superg1] 19/4/2014 15:13

Ammons

'Although Chile is in a bit of a mess, the new government has promised this that and the other to please the voters'

That's what all the riots have been about, a demand for change. If it doesn't happen then those riots, strikes and protests will get much worse.

Chile people were sick of the corrupt filling their boots and the miners making billions, while the Chile folk lived in poverty.

Hence changes are coming to make the miners pay for the reforms needed.

[bobbyshilling] 19/4/2014 14:10

I'm afraid I am not as confident as some that the water permit will be granted after the hearing. We have had an opportunity to address the reason(s) it was denied at first and have failed. From the rns of 3 Feb:

Commenting on today's news, Iofina's Chief Executive George Lantz commented:

"The ongoing dialogue with the DNRC is encouraging and Iofina will continue to collaborate with the DNRC with the aim of achieving a successful outcome. The Board is confident in its ability to meet requests brought forth in its 30th January meeting as well as any further requests that may arise in the interim."

In the rns which will surely follow on Tuesday we need to be told the exact reason(s) why IOF were denied again.

A lot of investors here have bought shares not just because of Iodine, but in recognition of the large difference that the water permit will make to the profits of the company, over many years. The board have expressed confidence in achieving the permit too. If we were successful in achieving this permit, I was of the understanding that another would be applied for at a different location - will this still go ahead if we don't get this permit?

The potential profits from water is the same as from hundreds of tons of iodine.

[ansana] 19/4/2014 11:51

In Chile the new Government has created an expectation of progress for the little people, they believe their time has come. No progress and I suspect the masses will get restless. As usual the Politicians will have to walk a fine line but they will feel the weight of public expectation and opinion. Being a Socialist Government their inclination is to improve education and "the common good". Some of the wealth of the few may well be on its way to benefit the many. This is not a party political broadcast so don't start! :-)

[bogg1e] 19/4/2014 11:47

Nice research SG

[ammons] 19/4/2014 11:14

Although Chile is in a bit of a mess, the new government has promised this that and the other to please the voters. Don't they all pre election. Lets see if they actually do what they are threatening to do. Mining is their main revenue earner. If they destroy the industry with their promised taxes and all the rest how are they going to fund their social program? Bite off the hand that feeds them? I wonder if, when the new government do the maths, they will quietly kick all the threatened reforms into touch or water (no pun intended!) them down.

[cyberbub] 19/4/2014 11:12

I can genuinely see a scenario where we could be back to 200p within 12 months on iodine alone. Whether it happens who knows!NAI

[bobsworth] 19/4/2014 11:04

With significant supply turmoil in Chile and decreasing production in Japan, major Users of iodine must be wondering where they will get their future supplies from and at what price!

Fingers crossed they will soon be knocking on Iofina's door, a low opex stable supplier with significant potential!

Forming funded supply alliances with Iofina would be a win win for both parties as it would allow Iofina to expand quickly and meet the suppliers needs at an agreed alliance price that guaranteed them a reliable supply of iodine.

It would also help secure Iofina's future to become the number 1 world supplier of iodine.

[uppompeii] 19/4/2014 09:58

Damn, have to think up another get rich scam... :-/

[superg1] 19/4/2014 09:47

Up

I thought the trick in gold is not to buy gold futures but to spot the under-valued gold producers with low opex should a price surge event occur. The CHIP thread guy is amazing with the info he provides on that front

RHPS did that re Iofina on the price surge but didn't really cover the point that that bought most of their iodine.

The options in entire market where iodine is the main revenue are Sirocco (now RB energy) last listed opex $41 per kg, or Iofina. Sirocco have reduced iodine production and linked up with Lithium, the main reason being iodine production costs using their methods were too high.

[monty panesar] 19/4/2014 09:39

There are no iodine futures.

  19 Apr'14 - 09:25 - 19256 of 19257 0 0

Hmm, maybe forget about IOF then and just buy Iodine futures...