Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[rhwillcoll] 08/6/2015 19:42

When you see me at the AGM, I will be the one with the white hair: turned white overnight on Thursday, as it happened :-).

To be honest, when I first bought in in 1912 (sorry, 2012), I bought in for the iodine. I never even realised that there was water (which there is/isn't - delete as appropriate).

Provided iodine production is above 40MT per month, and consistent, being fed into IC division, then opex should be fairly low. When the company says "cash flow positive" then that is exactly what it is. We do have a great iodine production model. I suspect that the company ironed out the plant difficulties last year, so it could be we are doing quite well on the iodine front. We should be able to continue going at a profitable level over the coming months and, as has been suggested, be able to roll out increased production via an offtake agreement, but only when the iodine price is right, which could be relatively soon. Lance mentioned an offtake agreement at last year's AGM. Wait for iodine price to recover, then prudently roll out via an offtake agreement, could be a sound way forward. I've kept all my shares.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 08/6/2015 19:34

There seems to be a lot of denial and ignorance here. You have not accepted that you cannot make money in a low-priced iodine market yet you still demand the company expand rapidly?

The only way you can survive this crisis is to reduce production and conserve capital until prices start recovering.

[woodpeckers] 08/6/2015 19:00

Well I may be a bit younger but equally have three children who are all dating so you never know when you are going to have to dip in to those ISAs to fund weddings (thank goodness they seem to take a year to organise these days).

Perhaps one of the questions for anyone going to the AGM would be regarding how long it is likely to take to get our case to the judicial review, or perhaps more importantly, how long before we expect a result. That is unless anyone is able to shed light on that now?

[rogerbridge] 08/6/2015 17:47

I'm still here and can relate to the post above, I am not getting any younger and the return on my investment is concerning as the timescale has increased.
What really annoyed me was the comments by Tom that everything was going in the right direction and the original water decision was a blip in the road.
Then a larger than expected loss IO1 written off in last years accounts.
I do think that it was decided to throw the kitchen sink in last years accounts and to draw a line in the sand. No one could have expected the water decision to go against IOF and I still can not get my head around how we could have lost, it is unjust, but I can see IOF being successful in this area down the road. Otherwise, the oil industry will be in serious trouble. It needs the oil companies to bang on the door and start complying about the serious lack of water provision for the future.
I am optimistic for the iodine side and this is what management really need to concentrate on. I believe that we will have record production and be making money. IO1 needs to be re-sited and a pod or to located in rich brine streams.

The board need to spell out the strategy at the AGM.
If I was 10 years younger, I would not be concerned, but for me, IOF need to step on the gas.

[spike_1] 08/6/2015 17:46

Bobby - yes age not on my side either - I'm 68. I need it to be a minimum of over £1.30 share price by April 2017.

Ho - hum ;0)

[bobbyshilling] 08/6/2015 17:17

superg1 8 Jun'15 - 16:43 - 33390 of 33393 1 1

It looks like the major difference is patience v no patience.



More like age (and health) v youth for us, otherwise I agree.

[bobsworth] 08/6/2015 17:10

Snippets of information. Apolgies if already posted but confirms Iofina's competitors are either going under or struggling.

RB Energy bankrupt after zero offers for lithium and iodine operations
By Josie Shillito
Published: Wednesday, 13 May 2015
The market's lack of interest in RB Energy's lithium and iodine assets has forced the company into bankruptcy.
RB Energy Inc. has entered bankruptcy proceedings after failing to find a buyer for its lithium and iodine assets. Company CEO Richard Clark has resigned, and the struggling lithium junior’s other three officers have had their contracts terminated
………;……̷0;……R30;……230;……………………………;……̷0;……R30;……230;…………
What next for RB Energy?
By Josie Shillito
Published: Friday, 05 June 2015
The bankrupted energy company sits on lithium assets that could supply the Tesla Motor Gigafactory once it opens in Nevada.
The story of RB Energy began in a blaze of glory in 2013 but ended in bankruptcy in May this year. Now that the company has the opportunity to begin again with a clean financial slate, what does the future hold for its Quebec lithium assets
………;……̷0;……R30;……230;……………………………;……̷0;……R30;……230;…………..
SQM revenues drop 27.4% in fraught first quarter
However, ongoing demand for lithium and iodine should help the company to put its recent drama behind it and deliver better performance in the rest of the year.
Iodine prices have come down, pressuring total sales figures in the iodine and derivatives segments.
20 May 15 | Josie Shillito

[bobsworth] 08/6/2015 17:07

Agree Cyberbub. I will be attending and looking forward to hearing all the answers. Hope a 9am start does not put many off attending.

[cyberbub] 08/6/2015 16:43

We need to start compiling a comprehensive list of questions for the AGM... and not take any cr*p for answers!

[cyberbub] 08/6/2015 16:40

I agree with Che, I don't understand why the company don't start rolling out at least a couple of mobile plants over the next 6 months?That would be a powerful statement of intent to reassure the market, and we are led to believe that the mobiles will pay off their construction cost within a year even at the current low iodine prices??

[beeezzz] 08/6/2015 16:18

BS...

I agree, the company needs to ramp up considerably, by doing so will kill off other suppliers with high costs who will eventually go out of business.

Water JV is key to the companies plans that is quite obvious.

I just hope they have learnt there lesson and get all their ducks in row, there will be no for errors next time, they need to do there homework.

[che7win] 08/6/2015 15:50

It all sounds very pessimistic here, I can understand why.However, the water isn't written off, last line said:"The Company will continue to maintain its leases and right of ways in anticipation of a future favourable ruling."Superg, aren't the mobiles priced around $750k including pad costs?Don't see why we can't get 4 of these mobiles rolled out this year whilst we wait for iodine recovery.

[superg1] 08/6/2015 15:22

Bobby

Re

'I cannot see that they can ramp up production to those kind of figures for many years if we don't have money to pay for it.'

It depends what the opex is and obviously how much you produce.

As mentioned we have a false market created by Cosayach and SQM.

Word from Chile is that Cosayach have opex of 30 to 33. As I pointed out recently an apparent accounting issue has been found in an Errazuriz company where $21 mill has been paid to the Cosayach iodine side.

The timing of that coincides with the fraud case and state street bank case. The relevant company has 'shifted' $42 mill in total, just when both case came up. It's being investigated as a fraud.

They owe a German bank $70 mill. The first fraud is $82 mill which they will have to pay.

Moving io1 is rumoured to cost about $1.5 mill with new plants overall costing up to $3 mill.

If you have a plant that does 300mt plus that's a lot of iodine for such a small outlay (such circs already exist)

RB/Sirocco spent about $150m to $200 mill over the years and ended up on 1200 mt per year.

Toyota pumped over $100 mill into Algorta for 25.5% of a max rate of about 4000mt but Algorta are unlikely to be anywhere near that currently with opex over the iodine price

Then why expand rapidly, let the production issues hit (they will) then let some end user pay for a plant to secure a supply.

As it stands there is a big problem coming in the sector hidden by all the issues mentioned over many months.

You can tell it's turning as SQM talked of significant over-supply and now equilibrium.

The equilibrium quote is in play before the 1600mt rate RB supplied at expires. That rate of supply will be or is already at zero. Someone was buying it and won;t be able to shortly.

There will be a draw down period as my guestimate based on things said, is that they were down to about 400mt of inventory by the time they went bust. About 3 months worth. So soon there is no supply from RB.

No producer in Chile has the ability to fill gaps quickly and they won't at $30, even SQM. If someone went to them they could open up other mines but would have to charge more for the iodine for it to be viable, then go about the business of re-employing the 100's they got rid of.




.

[woodpeckers] 08/6/2015 14:20

I don't think there is any argument that the water income would have/will be a great help for rapid expansion, however , it is not the be all and end all. Other options could surely include franchising the technology?

[bobbyshilling] 08/6/2015 14:12

SG, I appreciate what you say, but the BOD have stated that the aim is for Iofina to become the world's largest producer of iodine. Agreed that we are able to also be the cheapest producer too, but we need to be talking in thousands of tons per year, not hundreds, and that will only come with more units, either fixed or portable. I cannot see that they can ramp up production to those kind of figures for many years if we don't have money to pay for it.

All I can envisage for the foreseeable future is the company producing enough iodine to service their own requirements, with some left over to sell, and most of the proceeds being used to service their loans. When the price does eventually recover, we need the units already built and raring to go to maximise the benefit, for the company and it's shareholders. The granting of the water permit will afford us that opportunity; that is why it is so important that we win the appeal. True, the Bakken will expire at some point, but by that time we will have had enough income from the water to have done the expansion far, far quicker.

[superg1] 08/6/2015 13:48

Bobby

If the iodine resources are as stated, then all that is lacking is the cash to unlock that potential.

Even at $30 had G and G followed the laid out plan of where to put them the margins would be much better. Margins which hopefully will be explained at the AGM as there are some interesting numbers around. They have said there are some high ppm sites prior to the recent leasing comment about more.

Those will be like io2 and when you start utilising sites like that the opex drops to levels that.

If you recall the comment in late September was that opex was under 25. If they hit 50mt per month plus which it seems where they are headed (as in news comments) then opex drops materially more.If they move io1 to a site with better production than your low end plants and it's drops again.

If they follow the plan and get consistency it won't be long before we are under $15 opex.

They say lower quartile but there isn't anyone I know of anywhere near the opex they will and may well already be achieving.

I don't see water as a long lasting business as he Bakken will expire at some point in the future. Iodine won't, and the iodine resources are commercially rare.

From my info Everyone except SQM is on opex at or above the current price.

I say except SQM but they have the power to claim any opex they like as they have other products produced which come from the same mining processes.

They add that in the small print about like processes and accuracy of opex for each product.

[bobbyshilling] 08/6/2015 13:19

Well for those that don't think water is that important, because it is supposedly 'non-core' perhaps some arithmetic is in order.

80,000 bpd at even just $1 is a potential almost $30m revenue lost per year. If some of that was hot water then we could be looking at $40m in lost revenue per annum. 600mt of iodine does not even approach those figures. Even a JV on water still gives us cash up front and probably half that revenue too. That kind of money pays off our loans and enables us to build other iodine units quickly. They need to do their utmost to make sure that we have all bases covered in the appeal so that we get this permit. Without cash coming in, we don't grow at any kind of speed. The water income every year would make this company an iodine giant, financing the expansion. THAT is why the water permit is so important to Iofina, and is why they have been chasing it for so long, and is why they are appealing the decision. The company isn't going to get rich on a few spare teaspoons of iodine to sell, especially at these prices.

I'll no doubt be slagged for mentioning water again, but as far as I can see, that is the bottom line. Before anyone tells me to 'sell up then', I am still holding all my shares, at least until the appeal.

[che7win] 08/6/2015 12:07

Ansana, bonjour, un très bon poste. la société fera bien sur le côté de l'iode , récompense de la patienc

[monkeymagic3] 08/6/2015 12:06

Says it all.

[monkeymagic3] 08/6/2015 10:45

"A lack of realism in the vision today costs credibility tomorrow."

John C. Maxwell