Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[freshvoice] 01/6/2015 19:50

Are we sure that he can't raise a 'judicial review' which would give him several more months to sell his water?
Just trying to cover all bases.

2-4-702. Initiating judicial review of contested cases. (1) (a) Except as provided in 75-2-213 and 75-20-223, a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final written decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter. This section does not limit use of or the scope of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by statute.

[freshvoice] 01/6/2015 19:28

thanks.
I am sure given our history someone will find 'good cause' also known as 'sods law'

[superg1] 01/6/2015 18:49

Fresh did you click in them?.

One section is for energy development permits, the other is for air quality and water quality, so nothing to do with this particular hearing.

That leaves 'good cause' which gives another 30 days.

[superg1] 01/6/2015 18:44

Fresh

Spike thanks. All I do is keep the info flowing. It does take quite some time to dig out the info. As you
point out what the others are doing is highly relevant as production availability is probably the worst it's ever been in iodine production history. That's combined with the worst overall circumstances for each Chile producer too. Then add in their worst ever drought and all sorts of issues piling up for copper producers too.

I know Lance and co were of the opinion that Ponce Lerou and co were virtually untouchable, but as we have seen knives are out for the lot of them, and they are hitting home.

IOF should do well once they get established regardless of what the others are doing. In theory when the price turns it will turn quickly as any rise should be due to a shortage. Once a shortage is suspected, end users who hold off on inventory in a falling market suddenly load up to grab cheap iodine and we know what happens next.

[woodpeckers] 01/6/2015 18:40

I think the fact that IOF have stated twice now that we are due a decision by June 6th suggests that we our case doesn't fall in to thses exceptions.

(The Company expects a ruling on this objection on or before 6 June 2015. Additionally, and separately, The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation(“DNRC”)examiner denied the objector’s request for an additional hearing with respect to discovery.)

[woodpeckers] 01/6/2015 18:35

Fresh, if you click the link below it gives links to explain the exceptions.

[freshvoicem] 01/6/2015 18:20

SG
Can you tell us what the two exceptions to the 90 days are? 75-2-213 and 75-20-223?
Could either of those delay us further?

[rhwillcoll] 01/6/2015 17:24

severnof9: very informative - thank you.

bobby: just to say that having gone right through the beneficial use permit laws in Montana and all the information that I think is out there re Atlantis Water Solutions' application, including their preliminary grant by the Hearing Examiner: looking at his arguments in granting the permit to Atlantis and his overturning of the Bureau's determination to deny, I don't personally believe that Mr Carlisle ever had a case re his objections, only a portion of which was deemed to be valid: that for beneficial use. It is obviously up to the Water Judge (who was very thorough). There is no doubt in my mind that this objection will get thrown out, in accordance with the laws re beneficial water use in Montana. Mr Carlisle was fighting the Water Court's decision, and would have had to prove that they were wrong in awarding it to Atlantis. The onus was upon him to prove his case legally, against the top legal brains in the DNRC. But he had no lawyer and he had no legal case of merit, in my opinion. Atlantis had an ex-DNRC Water Master on its side. The only reason this part of his objection was declared "valid" in the first place was because, in my opinion, it was of some relevance to the grant, and not because it had merit.

Personally I am certain that this objection will be overruled. I agree with SG as well, but I have also done my own research on this and have arrived at the same legal conclusion as he has.

I don't think that "Sod's Law" applies to "Case Law", otherwise everyone's permit would need to be withdrawn.

[severnof9] 01/6/2015 16:52

The rule on the time for a decision post hearing

2-4-623. Final orders -- notification -- availability. (1) (a) A final decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case must be in writing. A final decision must include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, must be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. Except as provided in 75-2-213 and 75-20-223, a final decision must be issued within 90 days after a contested case is considered to be submitted for a final decision unless, for good cause shown, the period is extended for an additional time not to exceed 30 days.
(b) If an agency intends to issue a final written decision in a contested case that grants or denies relief and the relief that is granted or denied differs materially from a final agency decision that was orally announced on the record, the agency may not issue the final written decision without first providing notice to the parties and an opportunity to be heard before the agency.
(2) Findings of fact must be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.
(3) Each conclusion of law must be supported by authority or by a reasoned opinion.
(4) If, in accordance with agency rules, a party submitted proposed findings of fact, the decision must include a ruling upon each proposed finding.
(5) Parties must be notified by mail of any decision or order. Upon request, a copy of the decision or order must be delivered or mailed in a timely manner to each party and to each party's attorney of record.
(6) Each agency shall index and make available for public inspection all final decisions and orders, including declaratory rulings under 2-4-501. An agency decision or order is not valid or effective against any person or party, and it may not be invoked by the agency for any purpose until it has been made available for public inspection as required in this section. This provision is not applicable in favor of any person or party who has actual knowledge of the decision or order or when a state statute or federal statute or regulation prohibits public disclosure of the contents of a decision or order.

[bogg1e] 01/6/2015 16:31

Kevlar, if you think there is too much info regarding the competition, you could try contributing some decent research yourself instead.

[bobbyshilling] 01/6/2015 16:18

I'm a little surprised at the fall in share price with the water decision so close; it could come at any time now, even later today. I reckon most people must be fully loaded or don't want to take a risk.

[spike_1] 01/6/2015 16:18

kevlar - I understand, - however - the future of Chile production is CRITICAL to IOF's profit margin and therefore our rate of expansion.

SG1's ability to provide a running commentary on their woes is astonishing and IMO really valuable.

Best wishes - Mike

[kevlar131] 01/6/2015 16:08

I keep thinking I'm on a SQM thread

[superg1] 01/6/2015 13:18

The new twist, Hipermarc. It came up over the last few weeks.

In the last financial statements presented in Hipermarc to December 31, 2014 the SVS, you can see the declaration of the surprise negotiation made on December 30, 2014 of Hipermarc with 6 companies related to accounts receivable from related companies streams ( CPCERs). These companies are owned by Francisco Javier Errazuriz is Hipermarc same driver with more than 80% of the shares. The announcement of this negotiation is in the 12th Note of financial statements to December 2014.

In a consultation by Action Hipermarc the SVS 2014 the agency to consult Hipermarc this huge game of accounts CPCER for more than $ 42,000 million in "current assets" in fact was asked to balance sheets from previous years is It shows that these accounts were never canceled by related companies. The result of this investigation by the SVS can be seen reflected in the latest financial statements presented by the company .

Between September and December of 2014 there were big movements in CPCERs: the current portion decreased by 90% and due to this negotiation with debtor companies 6 originated new CPCERs non-current (long-term) due to 2024.

$21 mill in payment went to...

Cosayach
Inversionez Poza Almonte (that's where the iodine mines are)
Minera Negreiros (Cosayach have a mine called Negreiros in Pozo Almonte)

plus 2 others which are probably Cosayach connected.

That all happened when Cosayach hit serious trouble and State street bank were awarded $120 mill against Hipermarc.

It's all highly likely to be a fraud to empty accounts of Hipermarc to avoid the bank payment, and to help out the struggling Cosayach.

The accounts are currently being investigated.

[bogg1e] 01/6/2015 13:17

SG, cheers regarding "sales vs production" so 2014 figures at 33,200 tonnes would be consumption rather than production?

[bogg1e] 01/6/2015 13:14

Thanks sg, I didn't see your previous post.

[bogg1e] 01/6/2015 13:11

The above figures do not include iodine from the US, so if we include Algorta at 1200 tonnes, Woodford unknown and Iofina 170 tonnes for 2013 and 370 for 2014, then we get approximately:

2013 global production = 32,400 tonnes
2014 global production = 33,200 tonnes

However, numbers from 2013 seem to have been copied across into 2014 and as sg pointed out previously various mines such as 2 SQM mines with opex near $50 per kilo should have closed, so how seriously we can take the numbers I don't know.

Secondly, if downstream consumption has declined, then by how much? Given the huge number of iodine derivatives manufacturers globally, trying to calculate current consumption would be a nightmare.

Any thoughts?

[superg1] 01/6/2015 13:09

od re production figures.

Those sources (even the USGS) probably pick up the figures from sales rather than production.

EG

Chile it says 20,700 for 2013 and 21,000 for 2014.

SQM production 2013 to now will be 1700mt down.

RB dropped 300 to 400mt of production 2013 to 2014, but added in inventory for 2014. Including inventory they should supply no more than about 800mt this year, 800mt down on last year, but then last year was about 1200mt more supply than in 2013 as they did an inventory build in H2 2013.

In other words it's far more complicated than simply looking at sales.

SQM were selling 12000mt when the shortage came but they never went over 11000mt of production. This year their production should be about 9,200mt (with the mystery 17% drop in caliche mined still putting a question mark over what they said re NV production).

SQM suggest the demand will be up 1400mt this year, yet they are producing 1700mt less than a couple of years ago.

RN in theory contributed 1600 mt last year, that alone not including troubles with Bullmine or others is a near 5000mt hole in the market.

It's all down to one company now and that's Cosayach. Are they stealing water, loading up on unpaid for supplies etc, all with the intent of getting some cash before the wheel comes off with all the fines and debt.

The bosses are lined up facing prison.

IOF isn't reliant on others failing as they can achieve the lowest opex, but cash generation wise short term it's a pain.

[superg1] 01/6/2015 12:52

Od

Did you listen to the SQM conference call re the RB mine. They will buy it and close it. They did that with Minera Falcon some years ago. They take out competition.

SQM behind the scenes are saying they expect to acquire Cosayach and in any case they expect them to go out of business.

SQM have control of the price, so what other company is going to have the desire, cash flow, or persuade financial providers to assist them when Chile is hitting so many problems. Cosayach have demonstrated just how tough it is by falsifying invoices.

1MM

As above to stop anyone else getting it.

Bog

Who are DSM??

Easy again. Sqm bought them that's where the Iris plant came from.

2006

'Chilean industrial minerals producer SQM (NYSE: SQM) is in talks to buy Dutch company DSM's Iris iodine plant'

2003

FALCON SELLS IODINE MINE TO SQM ... Minera Falcon de Chile SAC, said the mine is being sold at US$13 million

I'm not going to look it up now but SQM said it was strategic and closed it down.


2001

Chilean industrial minerals and chemicals producer SQM (NYSE: SQM) expects to take two more months to complete the takeover of rival iodine producer Cosayach, SQM CEO Patricio Contesse told a conference call yesterday.

SQM agreed in March to pay US$140mn for Cosayach subject to due diligence, and said previously it expected to finalize the deal by July. But legal and financial aspects of due diligence have dragged on longer than expected, Contesse said.


The details about state street bank which caused the potential sale. As stated it dragged on so long the bank side of things concluded late last year.

[odvod] 01/6/2015 12:29

and
...was attributed to the decrease in
demand from downstream specialty chemical consumers ...

[bogg1e] 01/6/2015 12:27

odvod, to ensure ive understood the above correctly:

2013 31000 tonnes produced
2014 31600 tonnes produced
global reserves 7,500,000 tonnes

Also can you post the link to the above info pls? Tia.

[odvod] 01/6/2015 12:19

Events, Trends, and Issues: The 2014 iodine price decreased from the historically high levels of 2012 and early
2013. Iodine prices steadily declined throughout 2014. Spot prices of iodine crystal, according to Industrial Minerals,
averaged around $50 per kilogram at the beginning of 2014 and decreased continuously to an average of around $37
per kilogram in September 2014. According to industry sources, the decline in prices was attributed to the decrease in
demand from downstream specialty chemical consumers combined with a faster than anticipated rampup of
production by suppliers in Chile. Owing to the price decreases, some producers, most notably in Chile, have
announced temporary reduction of iodine production.
As in recent years, Chile was the world’s leading producer of iodine, followed by Japan and the United States. Chile
accounted for more than 66% of world production in 2014, having two of the leading iodine producers in the world.
The Chilean producers were operating close to capacity and were expected to adjust production in response to
changes in demand.
World Mine Production and Reserves:
Mine production Reserves2
2013 2014e
United States W W 250,000
Azerbaijan 350 350 170,000
Chile 20,700 21,000 1,800,000
China NA NA 4,000
Indonesia 75 75 100,000
Japan 9,500 9,500 5,000,000
Russia 200 200 120,000
Turkmenistan 500 500 70,000
World total (rounded) 3
31,300 3
31,600 7,500,000
World Resources: In addition to the reserves shown above, seawater contains 0.06 parts per million iodine, or
approximately 90 billion tons. Seaweeds of the Laminaria family are able to extract and accumulate up to 0.45%
iodine on a dry basis. Although not as economical as the production of iodine as a byproduct of gas, nitrate, and oil,
the seaweed industry represented a major source of iodine prior to 1959 and remains a large resource.
Substitutes: No comparable substitutes exist for iodine in many of its principal applications, such as in animal feed,
catalytic, nutritional, pharmaceutical, and photographic uses. Bromine and chlorine could be substituted for iodine in
biocide, colorant, and ink, although they are usually considered less desirable than iodine. Antibiotics can be used as
a substitute for iodine biocides.

[uppompeii] 01/6/2015 12:15

With all this talk of competitors, how much reliance are you all putting on them failing? Just seems an odd stance to take. Wouldn't a more profitable route be to short those you say are in trouble rather than wait for them to impact IOF positively? Not sure what exchange they are quoted on however if at all.

[odvod] 01/6/2015 12:04

"Last week at the American Society for Nutrition annual meeting, DSM scientists reported ~ 25% of American adolescents and adults were clinically deficient in at least one micronutrient. For more details read Hidden Hunger: Micronutrient Deficiencies are prevalent among US adolescents and Think Nutrient Deficiencies are History in the US? Think Again.

Iodine was the nutrient most often found to be deficient... "

[bogg1e] 01/6/2015 12:01

DSM are a dutch chemical company, but I didn't know they owned iodine production in Chile. Or are they partnered with one of the Chilean producers? Or do they buy iodine from the chileans and manufacture derivatives?