Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[awolagain] 06/3/2015 11:15

All that water makes me weak at the knees lol!

[superg1] 06/3/2015 11:07

Oasis conference call last week. Slick water comments

Taylor L. Reid - President, Chief Operating Officer and Director
Thanks, Tommy. During the second half of 2014, we began to ramp up high-intensity completions, and as a result, we were able to complete about 20% of our wells using slickwater or high-volume proppant during the year. Our focus in 2015 will be on Indian Hills and South Cottonwood, where we now have 20 producing high-intensity completions. We also have nearly 20 producing high-intensity wells outside of our 2015 focus area, spread across our position, which we will continue to monitor.

As you can see in our slide deck on Page 11, these wells continue to outperform across the position. For example, our Montana Bakken wells are exceeding offsetting hybrid wells by approximately 40% and Red Bank and Indian Hills wells are outperforming by approximately 30% to 50%.

In South Cottonwood, Bakken wells are performing about 40% above offsetting hybrid wells. The White Unit located in Indian Hills, which was our first unit combining both slickwater and spacing density test continues to outperform both our type curve as well as our direct offset wells.

As you can see on Slide 10, both the Bakken and first bench of the Three Forks are outperforming offsetting wells by nearly 80% and 70%, respectively. This has given us confidence to expand the use of these techniques across our Indian Hills and South Cottonwood areas in both the Bakken and the first bench of the Three Forks.

While these high-intensity wells generally cost $2 million to $2.5 million more than a hybrid job, early results indicate these wells are benefiting from increased early time production, and we expect to see EURs grow as a result of these types of jobs.

With that said,, we will be completing 60% of our wells with slickwater and high-volume proppant in 2015.

[superg1] 06/3/2015 10:53

lol

"I think next 20-F release will show whether they are really producing more as they stated; otherwise they would have lied."

So an analyst thinks he was told yesterday that SQM produced more in 2014 than they did in 2013.

SQM.

The not so clever lie that had analysts thinking 2014 production is up. Obviously a prepared answer for any questions on production.

"We had a very strong first quarter in 2013. Now if we look at the other quarters compared to the quarters of 2014, we think we gained some volumes. But in this -- not seen if you take the year completely, the first quarter of 2013 was very, very high. If you take that quarter out, then we increase volumes."

I'm looking forward to the release of their form 20 F and the next question time. :-)

[superg1] 06/3/2015 09:39

Rid

It could be a long drawn out process but the decision to ask for closing briefs does intrigue me.

Perhaps the IOF lawyer stated it's gone on long enough, and may have pointed out that many of Carlisle's facts are in fact just spurious and attempts to disrupt the issue of the permit. So as their lawyer I would ask for a quick conclusion due to my overwhelming evidence etc.

Decision making processes are easy if someone has previously laid it all out for you.

As for will we be aware of it officially before any rns news, I'd say the chances are high.

Timing unknown.

[ridicule] 06/3/2015 09:09

SuperG. Do you think we may see the Hearing Officer's judgement as a tick in the box on the Authority's website before IOF issue an RNS? It seems to me that such a tick, either for or against, could appear on the website any day from next Monday onwards.

[superg1] 06/3/2015 08:42

It should do. I've been wondering if the closing brief request is to allow him to make a quick decision, as to me it seems heavily stacked in IOF's favour.

The only reason I can see is to make his life easier with all details on a plate for him.

However best not to make assume that, such requests are not unusual but in this case it intrigues me due to the apparent overwhelming supporting evidence for IOF.

If it were to go the other way, then all related permits being considered now would have to be refused and under the water laws, that just isn't legal.

Legally I can't see how they can block another case, and if that gets approved a big door opens. Not that it's necessarily needed as after weeks of digging it looks like there is no legislation or processes to deal with the matter.

A toothless Tiger that blows one 'argument' out of the water. Policies are not law. I've been sat on this one for some time, smiling.

[escapetohome] 06/3/2015 08:26

I realise you have to keep those who follow your ' view' and your ADVFN page still 'interested'.

It is now over one and a half years that the share price has been in a rut - it has gone nowhere but down and sideways. All of that time you have been bullish ( wrongly inmho. Your view is starting to look misplaced, but you have to maintain your readers attention , who are and have deserted you like flies.

One of the techniques you are using to retain interest ( your rapidly declining following) is to accuse me of being Heartwell. I am not. If you wrong on that maybe you are wrong on a lot of things.

Another technique you are using is to post numerous ' research ' posts, some of which which may/ may not be true.

Sad really. Get the share price on an upward trajectory - only then will you be restored to grace. Find a way to that, ramping will fail this time.

[awolagain] 06/3/2015 08:17

Great news SG...! Hope it all goes well today.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 06/3/2015 07:09

Who is escape's blue avatar Graham? This is most intriguing...

[superg1] 06/3/2015 06:58

One last one. Do you play poker?. If you do then a bluff is always available when you suspect you have read your opponent.

You are heartwell due to having the same ISP.

Innumerable Silly Posts.

Read you like a book. lol No denial confirmed it.

[superg1] 05/3/2015 22:01

He is intrigued and thinks production for 2014 should be higher than 2013 based on what they said today.

I sent him the bad news re the closed mine and plant from the end of 2013 which he was unaware of, 2,500mt worth.

I also pointed out that there 26% of the market claim almost exactly hits my production estimate for 2014.

I wouldn't want him advising his clients based on the wrong information.

Now when they issue their form 20 F for 2014, I know he will be one of the first to check it.

However I would imagine he is firing firing off some difficult questions to them right now.

[awolagain] 05/3/2015 21:46

SG

You going to let the cat out of the bag....O that could be interesting...do let us know ;-)But then that might just prove that they have not done their job and they might have to put a contract out on you least they be found out...."sorry boss I did not see through all the lies....yes I know we might lose millions but it might start raining there soon and they will win all the court cases...etc etc etc"

"Ha

One SQM top analyst has just told me I'm mistaken about Cosayach building a seawater pipeline (as he knows them well) and that I mean Algorta.

lmao. I sent him some details."

[monty panesar] 05/3/2015 21:07

If the old man can't be boveerrrd in doing a lot of typing we could have permit by end of next week. Otherwise we should hear in next 6 weeks.

[superg1] 05/3/2015 19:37

Ha

One SQM top analyst has just told me I'm mistaken about Cosayach building a seawater pipeline (as he knows them well) and that I mean Algorta.

lmao. I sent him some details.

[superg1] 05/3/2015 18:27

That was a very nice piece of the puzzle completed today.

That Q1 2013 answer was clearly a prepared answer but wasn't the answer to the question.

Clearly the BOD had sat down and prepared that one, with the intention to deceive the analysts and throw them off the scent with a point they couldn't question at the time.

They didn't want to talk about production levels.

I'll send some questions to SQM.

[superg1] 05/3/2015 18:22

Oh what a tangled web SQM weave, when they practise to deceive.

Re the question and answer today

"could you please explain us what happened last year in the iodine business, that volumes didn't grow?"

"We had a very strong first quarter in 2013. Now if we look at the other quarters compared to the quarters of 2014, we think we gained some volumes. But in this -- not seen if you take the year completely, the first quarter of 2013 was very, very high. If you take that quarter out, then we increase volumes."

Ahem!

As has been sat in the header for some time, and assumptions (inventory level) now proven correct.

2011 Produced 10,000 t sold 12,200 t (-2,200 t)
2012 Produced 10,900 t sold 11000 t (-100 t)
2013 Produced 10,800 t sold 9,300 t (+1500 t)

So having looked at the first quarter of 2013, sales of $148 mill

2012 range per quarter $129 mill to $157 mill.

Sales range Q2 through Q4 2013 $103 mill to $107 mill.

WHY?

Because they had run out of inventory at the end of Q1 2013 and needed to replenish it. They fed the market some BS about losing custom, but the fact is they had sold out and needed to rebuild the inventory.

At the end of 2013 they closed a high cost mine and plant to reduce opex per kg. They then took the price down knowing others had inventories.


What they are telling, and have been telling the market, is complete and utter BS.

Case closed.

[engelo] 05/3/2015 18:11

roger: we crossed in the post. I'm the first to get impatient with the share price but imo IOF have played a very clever game so far, with a hand of cards that was pretty disastrous 12 months ago.

Not much progress showing atm, but imo a great deal of strategic calcs going on behind the scenes, including analysis of SQM's position.

Like SQM CEO I'm confident about the future, but I believe with a lot more justification ;-)

[engelo] 05/3/2015 17:59

Looking forward to IOF's strategic plan when it appears. Should be quite a contrast :-)

Another contrast: the SQM CEO appears from this analyst call (and previous ones) monumentally incompetent.

[rogerbridge] 05/3/2015 17:58

I realise that engelo but what I was trying to point out that in the past SQM would be quite bullish but they now are aware that in the future, as we ramp up production and with our low cost base, we could upset the market, that is if we wanted to. I do not believe we will do that but IOF are definitely on their radar.

[engelo] 05/3/2015 17:50

SG 30565: Excellent :-)

Roger: Iodine price: SG pointed out earlier that fwiw SQM are probably thinking of the average price for 2015 vs that for 2014, so not forecasting a fall from current levels.

[rogerbridge] 05/3/2015 17:34

I have listened as I like to hear the "tone" of the spokesperson who was not precise in answering questions and did not sound upbeat.
Feeling confident regarding our prospects going forward.
Skirted around Corfo.
$180 million in capex
Could not understand cost base reductions, but $50million of last years reductions and estimated $50 million to be achieved this year relate to the fall of Peso against the $USD.
I am pleased that I have no investment in SQM.

SQM want to get back to 30% market share but can not say how.

The most illuminating statement for me was that competitors are loosing money at today's iodine prices and the price could go lower if further production comes onto the market. That tells me that SQM know that if IOF wanted to place more on the market, we could and still make money but it would hit every competitor at a time when most can not make money at the current iodine price.

No matter what the iodine price level is we still have our chemical division making shed loads of cash.
As we ramp up production with our ultra low cost base, we have one hell of a company going forward.

[superg1] 05/3/2015 16:47

Mad

I think that is more of a bluff to competitors.

In the conference call they clearly state no expansion anywhere. In the news they talked of NV expansion which has in fact dropped production.

I will go through their Q1 2013 comment too, but that answer was nothing to do with the question so an avoidance tactic

"could you please explain us what happened last year in the iodine business, that volumes didn't grow?"

"We had a very strong first quarter in 2013. Now if we look at the other quarters compared to the quarters of 2014, we think we gained some volumes. But in this -- not seen if you take the year completely, the first quarter of 2013 was very, very high. If you take that quarter out, then we increase volumes."

Then hooray the first guy ever to ask if they had production problems.

"did you have capacity problems? Or with current prices, do you plan to expand your production lower? "

They ignored the question and gave the Q1 2013 details.

They refused or negated to mention that in late 2013 they closed down one mine, and the Iris plant, that is why production and their market share is down but they refuse to tell anyone.

If the beeeeeeeep analysts bothered to read the form 20 F then they would know the beeeeeep answer.


Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

[madchick] 05/3/2015 16:37

From the above transcript from Seeking Alpha indicating that basically if competitors continue to produce, SQM will continue to drive the price down.

Well, in the iodine, there are going on a lot of things, because we think, first, that the current prices are affecting some of our competitors. So it will depend much on what happened to them in the market to know -- to have a better reference related to what prices -- how much could decrease. If the maintained production of current competitors, even though they are suffering and we think some of them even losing on a cash-point basis, we think that the volume -- the prices will go down in the range of 10%. If there are some production in the market, that could be lower than that.

[superg1] 05/3/2015 16:35

AWOL

I had a think about it. Those analysts have clients with 100's of millions invested, and to question all the issues would just make the problems very public.

Analysts challenged nothing and asked very little. SQM couldn't wait to end the conference call.

As I said, a complete farce.