Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 13/1/2015 10:06

Bogg1e

I heard limited down time no longer than 2 weeks, but there was no definitive timeline.

Yields were fine at lower Bpd so my guess it that it depends on how high the bpd was over the last few months.

$700k is considerably higher than a figure I heard.

I also hear that due to potential design improvements the costs for large plants could materially drop.

So in the review I'm sure they will be considering such potential cost changes when deciding the next move.

My thoughts are that we will see at least one ppm site equal to a greater than io2 with a standard 30k plant in place.

[bogg1e] 13/1/2015 09:40

SG, in regard to the $700k spend on equipment required by Io5 and 6 to improve yields. Do we know how long it would take to install and test these parts or put it another way, how long the extraction side of the plant would be shut down for during the installation? A couple of weeks?

[joestalin] 13/1/2015 09:38

"BTW I have filtered the unreasonable lying toads so that their spawning is unnoticed by me."

I do not think they will be posting again. Unless, of course, conceit gets the better of them.

Superg has been proved right on all counts so far. Well done to him.

[superg1] 13/1/2015 09:38

Go back a few weeks and you will find the debate between Sancler and I.

We both concluded that on reading the water laws is was difficult to see how any objection listed under legal availability, and adverse effect could be valid.

I understand legal availability was ticked in all 3 objections and they were all rejected.

The only points I saw as feasible and posted as such was beneficial use by Carlisle.

The bureau do not determine if they are facts or not, just whether the points are valid.

Hence all we have left is the old guy with his beneficial use points. His own application (as pointed out) has some of the best evidence in it to contradict his objection.

Carlisle has not take the opportunity to add further details in relation to points refused. So has he given up? I don't know, but we will soon know.

He is unrepresented and the IOF lawyer is an a highly regarded ex water court judge.

[superg1] 13/1/2015 09:30

One more time (and the last needed I hope)..

From the bureau's flowchart which their staff follow and adhere too.

• Hearing must be within 90 days of objection deadline.

Re a valid objection.

• CO will send objection letters with HE assigned & Notice of Hearing date'

CO = Central office


By following the flow chart and admin rules I was able to predict that the most likely time a date would appear in the hearing box was early January (and it did).

The cut off date for the last objection letter to be received by or postmarked 23rd December.

Add 7 days for the postmark and internal admin rule.

From the flow chart

• Wait 7 days after obj deadline.

That I take is to cover late post.

As they waited until early Jan to update the box, that meant it was highly likely that at least one objector didn't reply.

Than I said no one replied and the news would be as before, and it was.

It's because I put the time in, did the research and stated the facts, not misinformation or guesswork, just plain old facts discovered by putting the effort in.

[cyberbub] 13/1/2015 09:23

Ah my bad. When the RNS said "revenue" it meant "gross revenue"! Not "net revenue" ie. after deducting cost of sales!Oh well at least we should be properly cashflow-positive now...

[phoenixs] 13/1/2015 09:17

At last the good news!! ....and I believe a lot more to follow in the coming months, particularly with the anticipated worldwide shortages of Iodine on the near horizon.
Just want to say thank you to all those that have continued to fight the corner against those doomsayers who have lied and continued to spread malicious comments about the company and against some of those who have carried out extensive research and have taken the time to keep many of us incredibly well informed.
Happy New Year and let us all hope it just gets better and better.

BTW I have filtered the unreasonable lying toads so that their spawning is unnoticed by me.

[superg1] 13/1/2015 09:01

Richi

That is the point.

The pre hearing is about discussing if all are available for the set hearing date.

As IOF haven't the slightest clue yet if the objector and anyone they want can attend on that day, they can't set it.

The bureau stick in a random date and inform the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner then discusses the date or a suitable date in a pre hearing conference which is 'tentatively' set for tomorrow. That was also a random date not agreed by those that need to 'attend'.

When the pre hearing goes ahead, then they will know if there is to be a hearing, and if there is a date, it will be one agreed by all. Then we will know when the hearing date is.


The date isn't within 90 days of the first objection received, it's within 90 days of the objection expiry date which was 1st December.

I posted the actual relevant paragraphs.

I don't believe you have a good grip on water v ppm. The plants vary considerably on what they can individually produce.

EG 60k bpd going to io1 io3 and io4 is dramatically different to the same amount going to io2, 4 and 6.

Then large amounts going to that group can mean big variations in production.

It's not the number of plants, It's ppm x bpd.

As I recall Jeff said he could see 27 drilling rigs from the tower of io2, that means io2, one of the best plants, will have seen major frack disruption over the last year or so.

Io1 the poor relation rarely sees any disruption other than the wrong trucks arriving as it's in Texas.

io1 at full capacity v io2 at full capacity results in a massive difference in production rates.

Everyone is talking about oil and reduced fracking. If that happens production goes up.

Contrary to what the fraudsters say, brine rates DO NOT decline in the same way oil production does, and that point is covered in news by IOF

[naphar] 13/1/2015 08:56

H1 production costs were 68.7%, so deduct about $17.5m off your profit figure.
Might not be that high if they got better iodine output efficiencies in H2, but a large portion will relate to chem division production costs.

In addition, given the $4.6m admin cost in H1, $5m full year seems like it shoukd be $7m to me.

So maybe a small profit or a small loss for full year.

However, It would equate to about a $1.3m profit, +\-, for H2.

[naphar] 13/1/2015 08:48

Because cyber, you have negated to deduct costs of production to get the gross profit line before deducting admin expenses! Production costs a lot of that revenue, even as a low cost iodine producer.

[rogerbridge] 13/1/2015 08:29

Excellent update and I like the increase in revenue, especially pleasing considering the extremely low iodine price. The installations must be running pretty well and bugs ironed out.
The low iodine price ( due to some dumping by those desperate for cash) was not expected or planned. Even then, to have this increase in revenue bodes extremely well for the future and when the iodine price returns to normL levels we will be throwing off cash.
Record sales for chemical side of the business, once more excellent.

I hope we have the strategic review as soon as the green light is given for the water business.
That should produce a wad of cash and regular income for some years to come.
It will be good to know of plans for deployment of pods, at least I hope that is what is decided rather than more fixed installations.
I am pleased that the production targets were hit, this is very important for the market and regains some of the lost credibility.

i believe that the board have been a tad conservative on their production forecasts and would expect that forecast to be a minimum. Better to be conservative, it looks as though Lance and Tom have a steady hand on the tiller.

As production is increased to a sustainable level and we have spare capacity our Japanise friends should begin to place orders.

So, all in all very encouraging.

[naphar] 13/1/2015 08:24

About $12.4m h2 revenue. More than double H2 2013 of $5.8m per SGs post above. Impressive!

[che7win] 13/1/2015 08:21

Unbelievable performance from the chemical division, it had been outperforming through out the year. What a gem.

[richi_rich13] 13/1/2015 08:20

Sg I understand the preliminary dates etc, and actually the date is 90 days from the first objection we recieved I believe. But, I read it slightly differently to the date is not set in stone. I thought the tentative may suggest they are doubtful it will go ahead at all.

Regarding, the water supplies, I too have read he RNS blaming fracking, I have also had contact with people in the company who have said very similar things. But, what the company say and forecast rarely come to happen, especially regarding water. Clearly, they have very little control over it. I haven't worked out the rate for the last 2 Months, BUT If You multiply it by 6 it wont Be too far off the forecast for H1. What does that mean - to me they are not expecting any significant improvements in water supply. We were supposed to have improvements over winter, didn't happen. We were supposed to have improvement H1 due to producing Wells not requiring as much water - doesn't look like it will happen. What I am saying is relying of it slowing down based on fracking may work- but personally, I feel they have tried that and it doesn't seem to be working. Now I would like them to produce a plan to show nw how they will overcome this. BWTFDIK

[superg1] 13/1/2015 08:19

Che

We had the doomsters saying fracking will cause problems. Then we had lack of fracking will cause problems.

We had those lies in recent times about production levels not hit and 3 objections in play that will take a year.

Those folks just lie to suit their needs, they have no morals. Filter is the best option unless of course one wants to read lies day in day out.

[che7win] 13/1/2015 08:19

Dc, I ignore water, all bad news out of the way, market isn't looking at any growth at current prices. The risk is to the upside

[che7win] 13/1/2015 08:17

Bocker, Agree with your posts, not many companies can grow as fast as we are growing. All set up for an iodine recovery and significant cash generation. Forecasts for H1 conservative, much better approach.

[dcgray21] 13/1/2015 08:15

Che - quickly double - and I'm assuming that's before factoring in a positive water decision and JV announcement.

[che7win] 13/1/2015 08:13

Fracking of Wells continues apace on the sweet spot we operate in.A bit ironic!

[che7win] 13/1/2015 08:09

Fantastic update, we must be close to breaking out from the downtrend. Share could quickly double from here as this year progresses.Yet to show its potential, the business is maturing nicely.

[bocker01] 13/1/2015 08:08

Seems like the chem div strategy is playing out well! Exciting times to come all round. Lots of growth to come and cash rocketing!

[superg1] 13/1/2015 08:04

There has been a dramatic drop in the price of iodine since 2013.

I look forward to any oil company, gold miner anywhere reporting 35% increases in revenue.

In terms of the iodine market and the chemical division revenue it's amazing they achieved it.

Not forgetting they were anticipating $2 mill plus costs reductions for H2.

I was going for about $22/$23 mill as they mentioned Q4 is typically a slow period, so they outperformed my thoughts by some way for that period.

In fact they only achieved around $5.8 mill revenue for H2 last year but more than doubled that this year on much lower iodine prices.