Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[stevo2011] 08/2/2015 22:04

Been watching that SG as there are cross over avatars who post here , it has gone from hundreds of posts a day to very few, some have moved over LSE and there is talk of the net closing in on a few with legal actions , an interesting watch

[superg1] 08/2/2015 21:55

Have you guys looked at the XEL thread of late?

All sorts of serious threats and someone that seems to be on a campaign with lawyers to unmask a troll or two.

As the heat has gone up, it seems certain folk have stopped posting.

[superg1] 08/2/2015 20:51

Nice details Cross thanks.

I did find a pdf a few days ago on the topic.

In 2004 there were 4 suppliers

----------------------------
Clariant International (Germany)
H & S Chemical
Bayer
Sherwin Williams Chemicals

H and S are now Iofina, so clearly they have been involved in the supply of that for many years with repeated contracts..

I read that The Great Lakes Fishery Commission are the only users of it worldwide. I recall that some companies stopped making it and was told there were two left (at an AGM) with a hope they would grab the full supply at some point,. I believe there are two different types, solutions and slow release bars or something like that.

I'm not going nuts, I was just trying to establish if this type of contract was a recurring long term contract. It seems it is. I note in recent times the Great lakes commission are looking for the next level of treatment to avoid resistance issues. So I wonder if IOF's products include a new type of product for that treatment or at least the are working with Great lakes to provide that.

I did mention that revenue would return in full in 2014 so in theory revenues should be up. They are by some margin against a big drop in iodine prices.

[crosseyed] 08/2/2015 14:43

Regarding Non-Iodine Products, thanks for the responses. I have looked back through past RNSes and Annual and Interim Reports for anything on this subject. Then I looked back through past posts. Not surprisingly, as was dimly in the back of my mind, this subject was discussed, particularly in posts 21100 to 21105. Of course, our super-sleuth had done the relevant research with contributions on chemical identification from gadolinium.

Let me first summarise these findings. There are just 2 references to a long-term contract over 5 years from 2011 that superg1's research identifies as being for the manufacture of Lampricide (though that name is not mentioned in the formal IOF sources). This contract is mentioned in Interim Reports for 2010 and 2011 respectively as follows:

"As an example of the long term growth potential and the strategic value Iofina Chemical provides to customers, we were recently was awarded a large key contract to begin in 2011 which will last for five years."
Interims 2010

"H1 2012 sales were forecasted to be lower due to an extraordinary circa £1.9 million (ed:~$3.01 million) sale last year per our long term contract. The contract states fixed volumes and sales figures for certain years and no sales in 2012, slight sales in 2013 and £2 million (ed:$3.2 million) plus in 2014."
Interims 2011

The Annual Reports for 2011 and 2012 include the Revenues from Non-Iodine Products as Key Performance Indicators. These Total figures are shown in the table below in black type, converted to $'000s in the former case. Oddly this breakdown of IOChem Revenues was not given in the 2013 Annual Report.




Non-iodine products







$'000s
Total
Lampricide
Others







2010
2,346
0
2,346







2011
5,110
3,010
2,100







2012
2,251
0
2,251







2013
2,200
0
2,200







2014
5,400
3,200
2,200







2015
5,400
3,200
2,200







Estimated figures in magenta


It is clear that the Non-Iodine Products include more than just the Lampricide sales assumed for the "large key contract". These are shown under Others. Elsewhere it is stated that IOChem manufactures other halogen products. Lampricide is in fact a fluoride (thanks gadolinium).In particular, there were no Lampricide sales during 2012 but Other sales of $2.251 million. Looking back over 2010-2012, the Others column has remained remarkably consistent at ~$2.2 million. I have therefore extrapolated that figure forward to 2014 and 2015, and also assumed a continuation of the Lampricide sales at the 2014-level in 2015. Actually, superg1's research also showed that IOChem is likley now the sole maufacturer of Lampricide so it is possible that 2014 and 2015 sales may be at higher volumes. However, I have assumed the original guidance figures.

So, to go back to iofra's post concerning the 35% increase in total revenues, this would signify an increase of 17% due to Non-Iodine Products, ie (5400-2200)/18964 and 18% due to increased sales of Iodine Derivatives.

c

[bogg1e] 08/2/2015 12:53

sg, the water laws to be passed in Chile will, if passed, cut 60-70% of the Chilean miners production going on the figures you have unearthed. However, taking SQM for example, as these miners have multiple operations (iodine, lithium etc), if the iodine price rises dramatically, could SQM divert water for lithium solely to iodine production to maintain higher output? Or are the lithium and iodine seams co-mingled? Thanks.

[gadolinium] 07/2/2015 21:01

Crosseyed post 29482:

I note that Non-iodine Products added $2.251 million to revenues during FY 2012. Would this have all resulted from lampricide production? If so, would we expect similar revenues in 2014?

The chemical formular for lampricide does not include iodine. Is iodine used in the production process? (One for the chemists, I think)

---------------------------------------------------------

Lampricide does not contain iodine nor is iodine involved in its manufacture, but it does contain fluorine. Iofina chemical are not just iodine derivatives manufacturers but specialize in halogen chemistry in general with the emphasis on iodine, chlorine and fluorine chemistry, hence the lampricide offering.

From their website:

'Our specialized line of chlorides, fluorides, and iodides meet the highest quality standards, and are backed up with unparalleled service to ensure that you can use them as efficiently and safely as possible.'

[superg1] 07/2/2015 09:09

The point of that research.

If it is a fraud then I'm sure any interested parties looking at RB at the moment will want to know.

More importantly if Zebra holdings bailed out on the highs having picked up 20 million of Sirocco shares. Then it seems the BOD of Sirocco RB were the ones that benefited.

Zebra it seems is part of the Lundin mining group. I don't know the legal process in the various countries, but it seems if RB goes belly up, then to me there seems to be a potential route to get their money back as they have lost a fortune.

I note Kinross had to write down 80% of the value of the mine they acquired from that group.

Interestingly the Lundin group bought a dud from Kinross for $240 mill, a known dud.

All in my opinion of course, but right now it has a very bad smell about it.

[superg1] 07/2/2015 08:51

Can anyone find details of Sirocco gold inc prior to the acquisition by Atacama minerals/Sirocco. They took on the name of Sirocco mining post acquisition.

It's starting to look like a fraud to me, but would appreciate it of anyone can find any references to Sirocco gold inc prior to the Atacama minerals T/O.

It says it was a private held company.

Aha

I think it's just clicked. When it became Sirocco mining and at the same time as the acquisition, the new team arrived. The Red back team of west Africa (the Lundin team). Sirocco gold is supposedly in west Africa

Atacama acquired Sirocco gold (privately held company) by the issue of 20 million Atacama shares.

"Messrs Clark, Jackson, Bitelli, Ross and Stuart, among others, are shareholders of Sirocco, as is Zebra Holdings and Investments S.à.r.l. ("Zebra") a company controlled by a trust, the Settlor of which was the late Adolf H. Lundin."

The Share price for Atacama now Sirocco now RB. went up 64% on the day and hit a peak of $1.35 v 2 cents now. That rise was on the back of a gold mine that doesn't seem to exist. The current team picked up 20 million shares in Sirocco which jumped to those highs straight after.

I'm now curious if Zebra then starting selling them and that's why the share price started it's long dive.

The more I look, the more I think it's one big fraud.

[superg1] 07/2/2015 07:54

1MM

I reckon their next plan is to show Orca gold as some fantastic gold reserve to attract big money, then leave the buyer with a dud.

Amazing really that the Lundin group who listed the iodine mine as part of their group. have wiped it from their records. yet it still exists. So I hope nay interested parties do their DD, but they are known quite well for the apparent Red back mining scam.

Cheeky sods still use that to gloat about how good they are re Red back. Kinross the victims took a $3 billion hit on that. The forecast v actual wasn't as it was portrayed I understand.

Going back to Sirocco, they planned a solar plant project which would slash energy costs, a deal with Etrion which was then suspended. Etrion are part of the Lundin group. It seems the iodine mine was a dud some time back.

[1madmarky] 06/2/2015 20:37

How the other half live eh. I'm sure some day it will catch up with them.. Hopefully.

I wonder how much via suitable proxy SQM have bid for RB's mine. It must be worth something to remove 1200mt per year from global production. But the question is.... How long can SQM keep the iodine price down for. The end of March would be ideal as that makes rb,s asset worthless. Fun fun fun

[superg1] 06/2/2015 20:14

Fresh

I've been checking some more. Sirocco and the iodine mine is listed as part of their group of companies.

Yet the 2014 review showing all their assets makes no mention of Sirocco at all or iodine. There are trying to wipe any reference to it from their current records.

I note they changed it from Atacama minerals by what looks like a reverse T/o of Sirocco inc the gold mine. They raised money from the gold mine but it doesn't seem to exist.
They then did an RTO of Quebec lithium then named it all RB energy, where again they raised a load of money and gave the $60 mill in the bank raised for the gold mine, to RB.

Lundin have no connection to RB energy of course, unless you know the story.

More importantly Lundin the mining and energy wonder company don't want anything to do with either asset.

Re Orca gold where they are all at, I see they are proving up reserves, having changed the name of the company, and have awarded share options in the millions to certain unnamed bosses of the company.

How handy is that when it comes to an NPV to sell it all on to some mug.

[che7win] 06/2/2015 20:11

Crosseyed,
I read it as the $37kg figure is the average iodine price in September, having fallen from $50kg at the start of the year.

Your $30kg would be year end.

[freshvoice] 06/2/2015 19:53

Sirocco RB Looks more like Meldex as you dig deeper.

[superg1] 06/2/2015 19:06

The reason I raise that last point.

Hugh Stuart did the NPV for Red Back, when Kinross did the take over and looked properly it was many billions out which they had to write off.

Now folks are doing DD on the RB lithium and iodine assets. I imagine any mention of a gold mine and potash mine have been shredded. Unless of course they left the toaster by the curtains, it's been done before.

So when I say the RB are full of you know what, the above is why.

I will refrain from posting what a certain CEO said about the RB CEO, it's still before 9 pm.

[superg1] 06/2/2015 19:00

Lol

Simon Jackson has just left Orca, now that's a red flag.

MR Stuart from Sirocco has stepped into the CEO/President shoes.

That is recent news but here is what they say about him.

Prior to joining Orca, Mr. Stuart was Vice President Exploration for Red Back Mining Inc., and oversaw the growth of Red Back's gold resources to over 18 million ounces. Prior to his involvement with Red Back, Mr. Stuart was Exploration Manager at the Geita Gold project in Tanzania, taking the project from initial exploration to production.


The opening sentence is a lie. Prior to joining Orca he was.....

Hugh Stuart, C.Geol FGS Vice President Exploration, Sirocco Mining Inc ,

Folks are investing in Orca Gold on the TSX. Personally I think research does have it's positives.


Hmmmm no mention of his position in Sirocco, that had an Iodine mine, a potash mine, a gold mine and it the end a lithium mine. Why's that then.

[superg1] 06/2/2015 18:40

Still rattling on but it just proves a few things to me re what I thought of the Sirocco and now RB BOD.

I kept saying that Sirocco rarely mention their gold mine 'asset' in Africa (Sirocco Gold Inc) or the potash 'asset' in Brazil (Salvador Potash Project).

Now it's all up for sale but not the slightest mention of it, it's conveniently vanished into thin air. Even worse investors seem to have never questioned it.

The gold mine was only acquired 3 years ago and at that time they raised $60 million to progress that mine and the potash product.

Was that just a fraud to get some funds ???. Where are the darn things, they haven't really mentioned them since the fund raising.

Oh silly me the RB/Sirocco CEO appears as the Chair for a Gold mining company called Orca Gold.

Don't look now but there is the ex president of RB who left RB to pursue other things on the BOD of oooooh Orca Gold CEO and President.

I know Alessandro Bitelli was CFO at Sirocco, Oh look he is at Orca as CFO

That Technical report was creating by folks who include Hugh Stuart of Sirocco mining, and you guessed it now at Orca gold.

Robert Chase left Sirocco late last year, now he is also at...........

you get the picture by now.

[superg1] 06/2/2015 18:11

Hard to call Mad. They do sell other products not containing iodine, but often iodine is used as the catalyst in making a product.

I know they said recently that producing there own iodine due to cost has opened up new markets for them.

We tend to forget that the iodine inventory they had probably cost them well over $50 per kg pre production taking over, so there will be an overlap in the accounts as that expensive iodine was used up.

[madchick] 06/2/2015 17:18

I'm away from home with limited internet access, but I thought this year's lampricide contract was worth 5 million? Could be wrong as I haven't checked. The split over the 5 years is in one of the fairly early rns's, possibly one of the annual reports (it wasn't a separate announcment but in with a load of other stuff).

[spike_1] 06/2/2015 17:07

Crosseyed: the $37/kg is an average over the whole year.
Best wishes - Mike

[kaos3] 06/2/2015 16:53

"The reason for $30 to $35 is now crystal clear. SQM had control of the market, then came the iodine price chaos"

Ditto. And there is always one SQM in commodities

Oligopoly needed

[crosseyed] 06/2/2015 16:42

che7win,
Interesting article though a pity most US figures are withheld. Is the $37/kg price consistent with reports from other sources? I thought it was lower, closer to $30/kg, though perhaps now rising again.

iofra,
That figure assumes a similar production as reported for 2012 and I arrived at the same percentage increase on iodine derivatives alone. But that's still a 35% total revenue increase against no increase in 2013. Hopefully the annual report will provide a breakdown as in the past, and also indicate raw iodine sales (if any).

c

[iofra] 06/2/2015 16:28

I know about the lampricide contract I've been in this company since 2011
let's take cross-eyed's figure of $2.25m sales in 2012 then doesn't the widelyl-touted 35% sale upturn anticipated in the RNS reduce to around 23% when you strip out the lampricide?

[che7win] 06/2/2015 16:11

Latest USGS report out:

Not hard to work out who one of the two US producers are, also the import decrease will be down a lot to IOF becoming self sufficient.

[superg1] 06/2/2015 16:10

iofra

Did you listen to the interviews, if not have a listen it covers new product sales, so do news releases.

Lampricide will be needed for decades and only 2 companies supply it.

The current contract was something like 5 to 5.5 years over a 7 year period.

At an AGM it was said they hope to capture that market in full at some point. There was a supplier in Germany but I think they have stopped doing it.

[iofra] 06/2/2015 15:58

crosseyed
that's why I asked the question - is the 35% increase due in part and if so how much to the lampricide sale when none was sold in the previous year - we don't seem to be getting an answer.