Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[neddo] 30/3/2015 17:44

I may have the odd moan on here about the lack of news, but have never ever voted sg down , up many times and appreciate the time and effort he puts in to keep us in the know, thanks to sg

[awolagain] 30/3/2015 17:21

MM3

I don't think so...the return did not look so good in the end....he has not turned up on TV yet...and it would not sit well with the party me thinks...

[monkeymagic3] 30/3/2015 16:44

I wonder if UKIP ever got their £1,000,000?

[cyberbub] 30/3/2015 16:44

47k shares would more or less match an annual ISA allowance...

[obbig60] 30/3/2015 16:26

Yes the two 102k transaction and the two later 47k transaction both look like rollovers or bed & ISA.

[awolagain] 30/3/2015 16:08

Yea Che7...already priced in...which goes to explain the downward pressure...hopefully now cleared and no more lurking we might see some effect from the buy side.

[che7win] 30/3/2015 16:02

Both look like rollovers?

[awolagain] 30/3/2015 15:56

Two late trades I see 100K each....maybe the last of the seller...hope so as it's end of the month maybe sorting his tax affairs

[che7win] 30/3/2015 15:56

U.S. gasoline demand rises at fastest rate since 1993.

[superg1] 30/3/2015 15:10

When I said it's raining, you guys might want to do some research, it was to get ahead on the information.

I have stated which iodine mines it affects in previous posts.

News today from Industrial Minerals

Floods halt Chilean lithium, potash and iodine production

Freak rainfall has caused Chile's SQM, the world's largest producer of lithum, to suspend some of its Atacama desert salar plants as a precautionary measure. Other companies with assets in the region, such as Albermarle, may follow suit if weather conditions continue to hinder operations, while Argentinian lithium projects are also rumoured to have been affected.

Heavy rainfall and flooding in Chile's Atacama desert has forced lithium and potash miner Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile (SQM) to suspend several of its operations in the country.

[superg1] 30/3/2015 15:05

Sorry I had to share this one, it's shows the brilliance of experts. This is the heading

'Data from the rather good Chilean met office site - Dirección Meteorológica de Chile shows that precipitation has differed from normal so far this year'


The worst storm in the north for 80 years, 7 years worth of rain in one day, and that's the header they came up with, 'differed from normal'

Next time a flood washes through taking my house, and killing some of my neighbours, I'll have a chat in the pub starting off with, "Hmmmm a bit wet today wasn't it, unusual for this time of year".

[superg1] 30/3/2015 14:48

Julio Ponce Lerou

Currently CORFO which is part of the government owns the leases SQM are on re lithium and they are trying to get them rescinded.

Folks go on about too much posting and info but then end up questioning the content.

EG

Ponce Lerou was a college graduate with no experience but shacked up with Pinochet's daugther.

Pinochet made him executive director of forestry and parks. Lerou got a loan from CORFO and failed to pay back about 70% of it.

No worries as a few years later he ends up as the General Director of CORFO. In that role in the 80's being versed with all the inside information available, he and his band of merry thieves took out SQM at a rock bottom price.

Much of the documentation around a number of acquisitions went missing.

So how did this graduate fund that with his mates?

Simple CORFO had provided a large amount of loans and subsidies to the private companies, paperwork for which also went missing.

CORFO was also found to have DONATED assets to companies and private individuals without explanation.

Between 1978 and 1990 they worked out that they had lost assets on the cheap losing US $2.2 billion in the process.

Government ministers were involved passing on privileged info and more companies were privatised cheaply. The ministers then resigned and became board members on the companies.

CORFO with Ponce Lerou as the boss were at the forefront of all the dealings.

The tale goes on and on, deeper and deeper., but basically Ponce Lerou and co sold assets at cut price rates to themselves using government loans which they didn't pay back.

Now what you have is a billionaire on the Forbes list.

[awolagain] 30/3/2015 13:26

I would love those who vote down the great info SG provides to come out and say your bit if you have another view...stop hiding behind the RED button!

[neddo] 30/3/2015 13:21

no news , is good news ?

[superg1] 30/3/2015 13:16

Montana comes under prior appropriation.

So going back to the criteria the first hurdles are:

Is the water physically available and is the water legally available. That is what prior appropriation rules are all about.

There is enough water physically and legally available for many dozens of permits the same size as IOF in the area they are in.

All of that has already been agreed. All the argument is about Carlisle's false details around beneficial use.

Hence as IOF know the law, their lawyer knows the law, and I have read it to death, thus we are all very confident.

That doesn't mean the HE turns out to be Carlisle's long lost son (discovered during coffee time) and finds in his favour, against what the law says.

[woolybanana] 30/3/2015 13:14

Thank you superg1. It sounds as if the water board will have to be ultra-careful and legal which is good for Iof.
Most interesting information that I seem to have missed somehow; perhaps it was round before I came on the board.
May I say how much I both appreciate and value your research. As well as admiring your patience to tease it all out.
Regards, WB

[superg1] 30/3/2015 13:10

The are generally 2 types.

Riparian rights

Riparian rights are generally described as the rights to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of the water. See78 Am.Jur.2d Waters § 263 (1975). The riparian owner has a right to make such use of the lake over its entire surface, in common with all other abutting owners, provided such use is reasonable and does not unduly interfere with the exercise of similar rights on the part of other abutting owners. Johnson v. Siefert, 100 N.W.2d 689, 697 (1960). Riparian rights include the right to build and maintain, for private or public use, wharves, piers, and landings on the riparian land and extending into the water. State v. Korrer, 148 N.W. 617, 622 (1914). They also include such rights as hunting, fishing, boating, sailing, irrigating, and growing and harvesting wild rice.

Prior appropriation doctrine

Most western states, naturally drier, generally follow the prior appropriation doctrine, which gives a water right to whoever first puts water to beneficial use. Colorado, where the prior appropriation doctrine first developed, was generally looked to as the model by other Western states that adopted the prior appropriation doctrine. Water law in the western United States is defined by state constitutions (e.g., Colorado, New Mexico) statutes, and case law. Each state exhibits variations upon the basic principles of the prior appropriation doctrine. Texas and the states directly north of it; the West Coast states, and Mississippi have a mixture of systems. Hawaii uses a form of riparian rights, and Alaska uses appropriation-based rights.

[superg1] 30/3/2015 13:02

Wooly

As posted previously I did some research. Apparently Carlisle is not Mr popular. I doubt they feel sorry for the millionaire farmer.

Water rights US wide are bound by the same core laws. The east side is easier if you have water on your land.

There was a pitchforks and torches case in North Dakota mentioned many times here. I was about a farmer sell water to oil companies and getting permit to do that. That water came from wells and was the same source that locals got their water from. All were against the permit.

It made the news and the water boss Bob Shaver said that if the criteria was met in the permit, then by law they had to award the permit. The permit was awarded.

They can shout all they like, the law is all that matters.

[woolybanana] 30/3/2015 12:55

I am firmly holding here, but there is just one little niggle concerning the water permit; we all may be underestimating the power of a "local water for local people" lobby. That can be a powerful force within local authorities. Need evidence, just try getting a job or a contract in Scotland if you are English!
Is the person making the final decision on the permit elected or subject to influence or pressure by elected officials? If I were Mr Carlisle, I would have been pumping the 'locals v incomers' line via the media and local masonic lodge right along the line.
I hope the above is not possible, but am just wondering. Meanwhile upwards and onwards.

[bobbyshilling] 30/3/2015 12:36

Could even get a surprise rns: first mobile built and on site? Now that would be good......

[che7win] 30/3/2015 09:55

Superg,
An interesting time for us.

1. Chile troubles in a mess, amazingly, now includes the largest iodine producer, SQM.

2. Water outcome to come, your six week comment would mean third week of April, could be anytime from now on.

3. Iof results to come, operating activities were $500k off being cash flow positive first half, we knew by October that cash was growing, no doubt helped by efficiency gains in operations e.g. 40% cut in admin staff.

I think that IOF is adapting well, especially when you read the 35% growth in Chemical division.

4. First quarter iodine production figures to come, hopefully the extra fracking December means less fracking disruption for us this quarter.

5. Strategic growth update to come.
I'm interested if they go for a few more full size plants, or exploit their mobile offering.
Costs to build will have decreased, running costs decreased, time to build decreased.

Will they exploit the focus of iodine clean up to licence or install mobiles at water treatment sites? It might not necessarily be profitable in its own right on our model, but what if the disposal of the water needs iodine removed regardless of cost? That means someone will have to pay for iodine removal.

Remember:
"The design and engineering of the Group's first mobile IOsorb® Unit have been completed. The unit is designed to be utilized at locations of less than 10,000 barrels per day of brine, down to 3,000 barrels of brine per day. It can either operate continuously or on a batch basis.

The addition of mobile units to the Group's portfolio will allow Iofina to take advantage of many more iodine rich sites in a cost effective manner. It will enable the Company to operate on a temporary basis, such as a pilot project or processing a waste stream associated with a water treatment facility or hyper-iodide rich areas with low volumes of brine. Mobile plants will also allow the Company to scale up and down plants at operators' facilities as production changes, and can be moved to a new location when needed. All of these benefits will assist Iofina in its continued growth to become the world leader in low cost iodine production within a dynamic industry."

Strategic direction from here will be the final piece of the puzzle.

[superg1] 30/3/2015 09:30

I assume from recent posts that a few in the background are here just for water, some based on uncovered bets no doubt

The result will come when the HE decides it will.

Short term I'm far more interested in Iodine as it's highly likely 3 companies have suspended operations, 2 entirely, and SQM their one mine as announced.

If the roads around those happen to be used be copper miners then they can expect them to be cleared quite quickly. As for the impact of the rain it was and still looks horrendous. Homes wiped out, people still missing, areas still cut off, and the vast majority are employed by the mining companies. Right now they won't give a damn about getting to work.

[monkeymagic3] 30/3/2015 08:40

I think people are confusing themselves/others re closed period.

There are both "closed" periods and "prohibited" periods, the former has very clearly stated rules and relates to a timetable led by the provision of financial information to the market e.g end of year results etc.

The latter refers to when information or actions are known e.g a potential win of a large order that could shortly increase the share price, where directors should not deal.