Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[freshvoicem] 11/10/2014 22:29

Steve
Just had a look and wow that's the first time I have had a whole screen of filtered with no 'normal'posters on the page at all. We must be thankful for small mercies. Let's hope he stays there perm.

[stevo2011] 11/10/2014 22:01

He's having a conversation with himself over on the XEL board tonight (two avatars ) and a very long one ,luckily most are aware of him,

[freshvoicem] 11/10/2014 21:49

Looks as though Nutters/ACT is set in for a good night.


Simmy if you filter him like I do it doesn't take up so much room on your screen until he gets completely plastered and starts posting every 4 mins or so..

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/10/2014 21:07

Well, if everyone's ignoring me what's the problem?

As for my useless answer? Surely if all that lot happens (cough!) you won't mind me being here? After all this is about the company, not me.

I wasn't aware we had to post sober? Is that a new rule?

[simmy1699] 11/10/2014 20:47

"Taxes won't, so death?"That's a useless answer. You should've said "if the company makes money and shows up on the audited accounts and lands a good JV ". That's not great for your credibility mate. Which is why everyone is probably ignoring you. And ontop of that you come online after a few Stellas. Blocked.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/10/2014 20:20

I suppose taxes won't stop me, so erm... death?

As for your allegation that heartwell is me? No, wrong.

You'd better be a better judge of this (firm) than you are of me.

[simmy1699] 11/10/2014 19:36

Thanks all. Out of curiosity, ACT, what will stop you wasting some internet bandwidth by posting on here?- if the PDTG receives no objections? Your other avatar (heartwell) said something along the lines of "well done, going 80p long" so was that when you were sober?

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/10/2014 18:35

Well, thing is, you can't trust what they say (company & posters). So to really see what's going on you have to get everything audited. It's kind of like being married to a crook I guess? You never really ever believe they've gone straight - until they've proven it.

So before we all get carried away by a few non-disastrous months (although bad enough), perhaps we should hold-back with all the back-slapping, because we've all been here before.

You may all wish to re-write or forget history, I am more cautious. I still think we're nowhere near out of danger yet. If we are making money as a group (and there's no evidence yet), then that will be good, won't it?

[cyberbub] 11/10/2014 18:29

Interim results for small caps are rarely audited, everyone knows that. While I daresay 'loose interpretation' of the numbers occasionally goes on, especially amongst the really risky microcaps, I see zero obvious reason to doubt IOF's latest results, they correlate broadly with what we expected. Although unaudited, they are still published in black and white, and it would be (at least) an FD resignation matter if any significant and/or deliberate discrepancy occurred.Trolls like ACT and all his brethren simply try incessantly to cast doubt on companies that they infest. They hope that newbies will read their rubbish and be scared off investing, and that even holders will eventually be browbeaten into selling.There are plenty of risks still remaining with IOF, but faked accounts isn't one of them.NAI DYOR

[naphar] 11/10/2014 18:23

Simmy
ACT goes purely by released accounts and nothing else, he doesn't even like the unaudited accounts, but they still showed us as loss making in H1 so suited his argument. He ignores all other company official RNS releases stating they were cash and profit positive in months X,y and z. The proof will be in the pudding, H2 numbers should show a shift to profit, full year numbers may still show a loss, or may show a profit, anyone's guess. If there is a full year loss ACT will pick on it, even if H2 is profitable - it's just the way he works. I don't know what he will do with himself when we are eventually profitable beyond doubt for a full year!

[bocker01] 11/10/2014 17:50

Simmy, ACT can read to a certain level but his comprehension gains few marks! Check some of the RNS'S from over the summer. You'll see it turned the corner in Q2 and since then has been shedding overheads fast. Positive numbers and cash.

[superg1] 11/10/2014 17:49

He's an alcoholic troll Simmy, been around for years trying to fire up PIs to get a bite, my advice is use filter. He has dozens of avatars.

[monts12] 11/10/2014 16:25

That's a great theory Rug, interesting to see how this pans out. Without doubt the outright award of the permit will create huge value.
I'm of the view that a JV is our best option under the circumstances, purely because we need funds to roll out expansion of the core side.

[rugrat2] 11/10/2014 16:13

Following on from sg’s posts today, I’m surprised that no comment has been made about the company lined up alongside Halliburton in the AWS application with the LOI for 1000 acre ft, as per Leggit’s post on ADV. I am referring to Trustland Oil Field services. As per my post on Monday, they are based at New Town, North Dakota within the Fort Berthoud Reservation. Having googled it extensively, there is not a great deal of information about the company on the web, and it has no website. It is privately owned by Steven Kelly, a native American, and was formed in 2008/9. It employs 20-49 workers (presumably varying with the somewhat seasonal nature of drilling in the Bakken). The following is taken from a job description on the web:
“Trustland among other services provides Roustabout services, water hauling, flow testing, hot shots, equipment rentals, aggregate hauling, Heavy equipment hauls, new construction, mining, environmental clean-ups & remediation/reclamation, seasonal services i.e. dust control/snow removal, specialized capabilities i.e. cranes and hyro-vacs as well. “
From the job description, and from the impression that I have formed from googling the company, Trustland are not a major water hauler, let alone a standalone fraccing contractor. Kelly appears to have set the company with a niche position as a Native American company on the Fort Berthold reservation, on which over 450k acres are owned by Native Americans.
It has only one site, SE of New Town, at 47.9759,-102.45142 on GoogleEarth. This is 111 or 126 miles from Culbertson, depending upon which route you use, with umpteen water depots between the two.
So, what is behind the LOI? Certainly it has nothing to do with supplying their current client base.
Kelly could of course have lined up future fraccing jobs to supply in Montana, or just over the boundary in ND, and have a base there already or planned, maybe making use of another company’s existing facilities. This doesn’t seem very likely given the static rate of drilling in the area -3 rigs currently in Roosevelt (3 in April) and 5 in Richland (4 in April), with the number of permits to drill granted so far this year being marginally down on the same period in 2013.
I wonder however if Trustland are a cover for another company to hide behind? By that I mean a competitor to Halliburton for the JV with AWS. Quietly get their feet under the table in Trustland’s shoes before revealing their commitment and interest to AWS, unseen by Halliburton?

[che7win] 11/10/2014 16:12

Superg,
Agree with all you say, that's what I want, money to expand iodine. We could have 20 mobile units in the field for $15m, equivalent to another 6-7 full plants.

I was wondering more what the water announcement meant for earnings.

[bocker01] 11/10/2014 15:41

Quite agree SG, with 15m to invest in a business already generating cash with a water cash machine kicking in soon afterwards and pretty soon we will see the share price shoot up. With 15m and more following we should be able to add at least an average of 10 tons additional capacity every month next year. What would that be in monthly margin growth? Stunning. But I think the company's ambitions are set higher! They have said it.... World leaders in iodine and iodine derivatives.....

[superg1] 11/10/2014 14:08

SQM is really getting bashed by the analysts now and falling.

I suppose the bosses revealed as fraudsters didn't help.

Poor old analysts have still not spotted the closed iodine mine and plant or the pending water law changes it seems.

Any material water law change now is going to hurt SQM's share price imo.

[superg1] 11/10/2014 13:53

Che

I'm thinking more of the market and PI perceptions than long term advantages of retaining the water division in full.

A lump sum of the size mentioned I anticipate would please potential investors, not just as a stand alone lump sum, but in the knowledge that they new team will spend it wisely, and only if it equates to a drop in overall operating costs.

That seems to be the overall target, get iodine production costs down. The others picked some lower rate sites, which means there are in some cases, much higher producing, lower opex sites out there. For every site you introduce below your highest cost unit, your overall cost comes down.

The target is below 20. The lower they go on cost the less of a problem any competition becomes. EG how can a chem div without production integration cope in a margins situation.

It you are producing below 20 and others are buying the raw product at 37, it may well be that IOF could do some iodine based products lower than some can buy the raw material.

I understand it is production cost factor, that has opened up their ability to compete in other product sectors, hence the rise in revenue on a falling iodine price.

I doubt the balcony would be very happy to see news of lump sums coming in and joint ventures with big players, no cash needed or any involvement just a cash machine.

They would want IOF to do it themselves and raise funds by dilution. That gives plenty of warning and time to consider positions and bash the share.

RNS $10mill plus up front is exactly what it says on the tin, with nowhere to hide.

[davidosh] 11/10/2014 13:22

Just to mention that Iofina will be featured at our huge Mello2014 investor event in November as we have panel sessions aimed at discussing various issues that investors have to contend with when investing in the UK markets ... mello2014.com

Why not come and join us for a day or all three days as the keynote speakers are all top quality ?

[naphar] 11/10/2014 12:28

Danster
I think you are making assumptions that are probably not correct. I r don't think they have feel tested the new mobile design at all.
The original ones, I believe, are sitting gathering dust, but may be wrong.

[danster4] 11/10/2014 12:22

I assume the new pod/mobile unit has been field tested, so hope this prototype isn't sitting in a shed gathering dust and will soon be deployed. If built already one would assume there is not much additional capex here, other than site hook up.

[che7win] 11/10/2014 10:46

Yes,
But is it a 50/50 JV with IOF getting 50% of profits or less?

IOF have done all the heavy lifting, getting the permit, does that mitigate against the partners capex spend to make it 50/50 or is it a lesser percentage for us?

We have sunk over $6.5m into Atlantis water(doesn't include amortisation), that should cover a lot of the partners capex spend to make it a JV of equals?

Is 8-10p EPS accurate for water or not, doesn't seem to be against your $10m upfront assumption.

I really don't know, just throwing ideas out there.

Ooh, predator seems scary :-)

[superg1] 11/10/2014 10:46

So based on the last post.

I think of a payment of perhaps $10 mill plus. I knock that down as the last deal was about 2 x 100k bpd 50/50 revenue share in ND and Montana and for 50% of Atlantis.

I've no idea if any potential JV will centre on just the permit or lock stock and barrel re the discharge permit, rights swap, future depots and so on.

So I then think 7.5 mill in the bank and growing, $4 mill in receivables which may have reduced in part due to the 7.5 mill figure v June end comments.

Then add on another $10 mill or more.

So if it goes anything like I suspect IOF should have a very nice amount of cash in the bank to execute any plans they have on the iodine side.


Post this permit which is now drawing to a close, I did wonder how long it would take to secure further sites. It's my understanding that you can't apply for more than one permit at a time.

On the sites point, it's in an rns, they sorted actual sites some time back.

Will they apply for another? I've ni idea. Would a big potential partner want more? certainly imo, due to the geographical need.

What do the big players foresee?

Restrictions on aquifer based industrial use as they are depleting. A block on future aquifer based industrial use permits. A withdrawal of the emergency legislation which allows irrigation water to be sold for industrial use. A long battle and probably the US army corps forcing payment on rights for the section of lake Sakakawea that they say belongs to them. Water rights entirely appropriated, which means the water bureau determines there is no further water available to extract. Bob Shaver a year back reckons that would happen within a few years

If IOF or whoever does decide that recycling Atlantis water is viable on cost, then when they discharge it, they own it as the water discharge permit equates to a storage right. The permit was for 30k bpd to match the iodine plant the amount can be increased.

IOF wells back then cost 50k each. There are already 34 capped off. The water pipeline and pumping station is already there to pump water into the Fresno, which feeds into the Missouri.

That's one hell of a bonus for when things get tight in the Bakken and ND, and it's unique, probably US-wide unique.

USFW rights swap deal. Their rights can be converted to industrial use whereas irrigation water rights can't.

Looks like a screaming buy on the water division to me, if I was in that sector.

Here is one I have tracked closely for some they expanded rapidly and feature heavily in the Bakken. They are the now $800m per year revenue folk.


hxxp://selectenergyservices.com/

Halliburton have been keen for some time to develop a water division but they took the wrong turn early on.

Oasis big in the Bakken seek to get everything done by pipelines including fresh water gathering pipelines. They have introduced a subsidiary 'Oasis midstream services' which includes fresh water sourcing and gathering systems.

Sclumberger have a water division.

The Bakken is a mess in relation to water services and many 'depots' are temporary and not up to scratch.

The big players have plans to get the infrastructure right to get solid supplies/disposal and costs down.

Supply isn't just about supply. For every supply contract you get, it generally links straight to a disposal contract, for the flow back water, and subsequent produced water. So if you can increase you supply you increase your disposal contracts too. Halliburton and co know that

IOF did try to explain that some time back, but after a few 'uhs' from fund analysts, they gave up. It was bad enough trying to explain supply of water, so they gave up on that too, with some.

Watch that list of names, I doubt Halliburton are the only predator.