Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[joeblogg2] 09/12/2014 15:28

As always thks super. !!!

[superg1] 09/12/2014 15:20

Joe

An objection is reviewed to see if any points are valid. If the objection is completely not valid or any points in it are not valid they send it back to the objector.

They get 15 days to reply to any points not deemed valid. If a reply arrives they then check any further information to see if that is valid etc etc.

If all points in any objection had been deemed valid then I would have expected a hearing date to have been entered by now. So imo any objection has been returned to the objector to reply with more detail if they wish.

If they don't reply and there are no original points within it deemed valid then the permit is awarded.

If it comes back and points are deemed valid then a date will go in the hearing box.

I know this from the flow chart data and other research. Once relevant points are deemed valid the hearing examiner is informed and a default date put in the hearing box. There is no point doing any of that until the timelines above are complete.

If all points had deemed valid a date would be in by now imo. As there isn't I suspect we will be looking at the WC commencing 22nd December until the 15 days are up and any replies reviewed.

With Xmas in the way that week with only 2.5 days trading, any update would probably be the last week of December or early Jan.

By that time it would only be weeks to any hearing if that happened, as it would have to be held before the end of February.

Due to the flow chart and how it all works, I'd be amazed if there was an update before then unless it was to point out the above.

I'm in iodine mode, being the year end, they will know if targets have been hit etc etc, and may give a general update. By mid this month it should be fairly clear how they will do re production.

Water talks and a potential JV could come at any time, though logically it may be best for IOF to sit on such news if relevant while the objection process unfolds.

So to answer that my best bet for any objection update would be 22nd onwards.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 09/12/2014 14:39

I'd rather not buy this at all.

[che7win] 09/12/2014 14:36

Brucie, Personally, i would rather buy at current prices before a 100% rise to 66p, but each to their own.

[sandbag] 09/12/2014 14:06

"One guy that calls himself Mike Ames has the identical signature to John Ames".

Theres's a Mike Ames who is a member of the Independent Water Providers Group.

[joeblogg2] 09/12/2014 13:59

super. you may have already posted but when do you think we will find out about the objection if it is valid or not?

[superg1] 09/12/2014 13:56

Monts

Sells over the last 3 weeks have included someone on a margin call I'm told. I assume they had a fair stake.

Someone did buy about about 1 million shares taking it over 60p in that climb. I've absolutely no idea who that was or if it's connected.
No sign of any insti's selling I hear.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 09/12/2014 13:41

Yeah, plenty of downside still to come here for sure.

[brucie5] 09/12/2014 13:38

Personally I'm not going near this again until the last of the downward momentum has been squeezed out of the chart. Having read Boggle's impressive research, and Supergs coverage, the future case does indeed look interesting imo, but if good things come to pass I believe we will see it clearly on the chart. That means a rise to 50/60, and testing of support, imho. I would imagine, on the back of definitively good newsflow. FWIW, NAI.

[meb123] 09/12/2014 13:12

I see the price has settled around 34p . I suspected all along it will drift after the last RNS but its been more than a drift sadly . Assuming all being well with the next market update etc, any views on whether we have hit the bottom ?

[panoramix] 09/12/2014 12:33

octopus,

hxxp://www.dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_rts/appro_info/applications/application_status.asp?id=30066181

[che7win] 09/12/2014 12:09

Thanks gad,
Superg, yes, I listened a few times to every word of the SQM cc.

What struck me was they said they know very little about what other iodine players are up to as there was only RB energy and us if course who release results (maybe they are being coy).

They had no idea about the last analysts question on iodine prices who was clearly referring to an Indmin article.

[octopus100] 09/12/2014 11:51

Does anyone have a link to the Montana water board where IOF have their application and the objection is noted?

[cyberbub] 09/12/2014 10:47

I had been hoping we would see a.bounce around these levels, at the support level which we bounced off a few weeks ago... let's see if it's maintained...GLA

[superg1] 09/12/2014 10:39

Of course not forgetting that SQM recent $250 mill loan note when they forecast slashed capex spending and opex reduction.

They don't seem to need it, well not for anything they have yet admitted to.

[superg1] 09/12/2014 10:27

Cosayach

SQM tried to buy Cosayach in 2001 when Cosayach were hit with an $80 mill court settlement. We now know that court case dragged onto this year where it has been finalised at $120 mill.

At the same time a German bank hit them for $70 mill.

In recent times the IRS have found $82 mill worth of false tax claims from Cosayach. They will want that back plus up to 4 times that amount in fines and up to 15 years in prison for the 9 bosses listed in the IRS report.

In May SQM hit them on water theft and 38 wells were closed.

SQM this year lost a case against Cosayach where Cosayach have gained large areas for lithium leases. SQM want those and in fact had registered them in SQM's name.

Cosayach said nah nah, nah nah nah, we are going to do lithium.

That was before the two bank cases of $190 mill and the $82 mill tax fraud, wells closed, and offices raided.

SQM it's said made a comment privately earlier this year. "Cosayach are going to be facing some serious money issues and we will probably end up with them"

In conference calls they refuse to detail how they will get their 30% market share back.

SQM want their lithium leases and want the seawater pipeline that Cosayach had approved. SQM don't have one of those in play but will need one.

Cosayach has built up an excess of illegally produced iodine and SQM knew they had big financial troubles on the way, so SQM took the price down to stifle their cash flow and now Cosayach look worthless.

I plan to go long on SQM at some point in 2015.

[superg1] 09/12/2014 10:16

To summarise that last one for those that don't like long posts.

RB have completed a technical report valuing their iodine mine at $156 mill if iodine prices were $45. For every $1 drop they quote -$14 mill on the valuation.

RB were to expand to 2,200 mt for that valuation but the price drop forced them to abandon the ALP and they are now on 1300mt.

RB have water rights which support the 1300 mt. SQM hold various leases around RB's property.

RB were a threat to SQMs revenue re their lithium mine, they quoted RB as an issue that would send lithium prices down.

RB announced they were in trouble and would sell iodine to support the lithium mine. RB spent Sirocco's $60 mill bank balance.

SQM took the price down and have strangled RB and made their iodine mine worthless. In the next 12 months imo SQM will pick up the RB iodine mine for very little.

Others can't outbid them as with the iodine price so low they don't have any cash.

SQM said in the recent conference call they may be interested in the mine, but not currently. They re-affirm they will get their 30% market share back.

[gadolinium] 09/12/2014 10:13

Che post 27648,

Excellent summary and a timely reminder of the IODINE investment case here.

Thanks

[superg1] 09/12/2014 09:11

I understand a recent seller has been a margin seller. I share such points not for the benefit of being a bull or hyping anything, it's just plain old information for folk that know me.

I see Hurricane posted about the wildlife issue.

I note it seems to be an objection point and was the same for Culbertson.

The details of the effects on wildlife and requirements are listed in other posts, as in the Culbertson case it was deemed not valid. In regard to that particular point I agree with Hurricane.

[che7win] 09/12/2014 09:09

Superg,
Feels to me that buyers are holding off and waiting for others to make the first move.

The rise once this turns should be swift, once buys do come in...

Low volume sales, the share is in a rut not reflecting the underlying business IMHO.

[superg1] 09/12/2014 08:37

Good post Che.

The margins slashed comment clearly shows the intent, it's pure targeting of negatives with complete ignorance of prior comments.

When the iodine price soared. IOF announced they would honour contracts not raising prices to ensure future good customer relations.

Now the price is down to near it original price pre boom you think IOF have slashed their price. Why would they they never put it up in the first place.

Things may have looked better for new custom, BUT it's the low price that has made some products viable again, like agriculture disinfectants.

What's more when the price went up the Troy corporation announced price hikes on their products. As the price has come down they have said nothing on prices.

Obviously higher prices is more favourable, but if we want Chile producers to disappear, then now is the time for that to happen, a surge in prices or a maintenance of prices over 45/50 would see RB and Cosayach perhaps surviving.

SQM have taken the price here to try to destroy those two companies. They know Bullmine and Algorta are on seawater and higher prices, so they are strangling them too and will probably create cash flow issues for both.

SQM have all the Chile folk by the throat at the moment. They know RB and Cosayach are is serious trouble.

At the end of the day SQM would love to buy Cosayach and perhaps buy and close RB. The way to do that is to make them worthless. The need for that was far greater once both hit serious financial issues.

[jbe81] 09/12/2014 02:04

about time mr b topped up