Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[kirk 6] 12/6/2015 11:44

Looking good noe

[superg1] 12/6/2015 11:42

Option B is that Awol has seen the video and has it translated and it says Cosayach have been closed down.

Just joking, but I'd be interested to know what that news article is about in full.

[rhwillcoll] 12/6/2015 11:34

I'm expecting a further spike, Spike.

[spike_1] 12/6/2015 11:31

Someone is looking to buy 183k @ 21p on level 2 BUT it is LSE based not MM so could disappear, but it is helpful to protect the down-side if it stays there.

p.s. I've been buying this morning too ;0)

[rhwillcoll] 12/6/2015 11:28

Bid price has just ticked up yet again .....

[kirk 6] 12/6/2015 11:24

Can sell 100k on the rsp and only buy 10k expecting a move upwards from here

[serratia] 12/6/2015 11:20

TFC,

How many at present ?

[the fat controller] 12/6/2015 11:12

There were 108k available to buy yesterday.
It's starting to get interesting...
TFC

[rhwillcoll] 12/6/2015 11:04

Well, somebody has a big buy order in. Is that you, che7win?

[che7win] 12/6/2015 11:02

Oops, corrected.
yes - that's what I mean - and for the full Q2.

[superg1] 12/6/2015 10:56

So you mean 135 mt Q2 not H1 as that fits in with your 262.9 (127.9mt for Q1).

And that's for the full 3 months not up to AGM time.

[rhwillcoll] 12/6/2015 10:54

A very large number of shares on the bid side this morning, and the bid price is rising.

[che7win] 12/6/2015 10:49

superg, on production, I'll give it a go.

Ok, from results:
"The Group is on target to meet a production target of 220-260 MT of crystalline iodine in H1 2015."

Looking at the figures:

We did 127.9mt Q1, the forecast we have is 220-260mt for H1.
So average each month Q1 was 42.6MT.

Therefore, we need 92.1mt in Q2 to meet forecasts, 132.10mt to beat them.
That means an average of 30.7MT to 44mt per month Q2.

I reckon IO1 was doing around 3MT per month - 9MT Q1.
I would think that better weather temperatures Q2 will balance out IO1 going offline and still produce a bit extra.

Lets go for +10% on H1 for weather, so thats 46.86mt.
Io1 reduction makes 44.86 (allowing that it didn't go offline until start of May).


31+28+31 = 90 days Q1,
30+31+30= 91 days Q1 (extra day), so 0.473mt advantage added to 44.86mt per month.

I'll go for 135MT Q2 which makes 262.9mt.

That ties in nicely with IOF liking to miss or beat things by slim margins :-)

[superg1] 12/6/2015 10:46

Some sort of Cosayach news is breaking. I wish I spoke Spanish. AWOL any chance you can ask your Spanish speaking source to translate

I'll point out the things I have picked up.

Rossi Pide cierre is in it along with Rossi Fluvio

From old news I found this (you'll see why I pick on this bit in a mo)

From 2007

Socialist MP Fulvio Rossi called for the closure of mining Soledad, who poured chemicals have infiltrated the underground water in the Pampa aquifers, which supply the lifeblood to Iquique and Pozo Almonte.

Today the parliament moved to the area where the plant operates with the idea of ​​controlling field conditions in the mining company owned Cosayach be working. I visited accompanied by two inspectors from the Regional Ministerial Secretariat of Health, however, it did not achieve its purpose of entering the plant, because the company staff denied access.


One guy has autaridad sanitaria on his jacket which means health authority.

Another notice says

'tasks of the site without an environmental impact study'

When Rossi is showed on some occasion the figure 06/07 appears. I take it some clips are from back then where he had the same argument.

Words which mean toxic and acid are popped in, So it seems there is potentially and issue in play with toxic substances affecting the aquifers.

I heard Tamarugal mentioned too which is the same topic as in the SQM news the other day. It's the national reserve.

As it was only posted yesterday today my guess is that it's current and would fit in with the SQM news recently.

I also think it's current as it seems to show a pipeline which is probably the new seawater pipeline.

Note the mention of 'without environmental impact study', some time ago I pointed out that Cosayach don't have EIAs for two of their 3 sites,

Publication date : 06/12/2015



You can see the Cosayach lot block him and the health authority from entering site

[superg1] 12/6/2015 10:15

I think it was you Mad that asked re level 2.

I don't like the version (iii), I got free and don't use it, looked at it once, the ADVFN one is much better imo.

[superg1] 12/6/2015 10:07

Anyone fancy a production forecast. My mid range estimate last time was .4 mt out. Perhaps I should not try this time but I have a figure in mind by the time the AGM arrives.

There are about 60 to 70 sources to help figure it out. As I say If I lived in Oklahoma it would be easy.

[jbe81] 12/6/2015 09:22

Great buying opportunity, bought some more, hoping for a good start to the week next week.

[superg1] 12/6/2015 08:40

Mortie

There has been so much going on, why has the maintenance water bit caught your attention and become an important topic for you, just curious?

There are dozens of reports that go on about the need for maintenance water in the bakken due to the high salt content.

1 slick water completion uses up to 50 years worth of maintenance water and 4 times what the old completion methods were doing. Oil production is much higher

The Bakken is in it's early stages, a cycle of reworking wells will begin and probably has already begun.

Halliburton and co want water, for exactly what and where, we don't know.

[danster4] 12/6/2015 08:39

If they do plan to deploy some mobiles in the future, I would like to hear from them that it is hooked up, operational and producing iodine, rather than an RNS stating that two mobiles are to be built with a completion date end of August 2015.

[spike_1] 12/6/2015 08:29

By the way I asked the CEO a little while ago whether slick water was beneficial to IOF, i.e. did pumping all the additional water reduce the ppm's (parts per million), and he said that slick water usage would be beneficial to IOF.

Best wishes - Mike

[che7win] 12/6/2015 08:02

Superg, Yes, that makes sense, if they are over here on Monday, then they will be meeting a lot of folks in the city.

[mortie1] 12/6/2015 07:58

Thanks SuperG, but I'm not sure I see the relevance to "maintenance water". I think the last article I found answered my questions and was sufficiently authoritative for me. Thanks.

[superg1] 12/6/2015 07:31

Mortie

It was all in a survey completed by the society of petroleum engineers as I recall. They did the largest survey to date on 1100 Bakken wells with various operators.

I do have some quotes from it but that is about the move to slick water. The link I had to it is now void, it's out there somewhere if you want to look for it.

Most wells have been completed by the old methods, sections of them have been untapped due to the frac spacings. Slick water does many more of those hence uses up to 4 times the normal rate.

Wells get reworked a few times during their life-cycle and many other wells sit awaiting completion as in reports.

The quote

5) Operator R’s total drill and equip cost is about $9 million versus just under $11 million for Operators A&C )Slick water). For the roughly 20% increase in total well cost, Operators A&C’s advanced completions deliver 100% to 400% more oil in the first 180-days. In the poorer reservoir areas (70% WC), production from Operator R’s completions is 12 MBO in the first 180-days versus 53 MBO for Operators A&C, a difference of 41 MBO, worth $3.7 million. This difference increases to 63 MBO in the better reservoir areas (30% WC) adding $5.6 million to the first half-year’s revenue.


7) Spending an additional $1-2 million per well for advanced completions may seem high; however, this is only 10-20%

of the total well cost. For most of the cases looked at, the benefits for the advanced completions add multiple

millions of dollar in the first year and the additional costs are paid out in just a few months.

On page 12 it shows the amounts used and results for different methods.

In a chart it shows slickwater having average uses of 25.1 barrels/ft. For the others it shows a range of 5.7 to 7.9.

That means slickwater on average uses 3.2 to 4.4 times the water used on other methods.