Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 14/6/2015 08:02

Kaos

Re TA Zac pre the last comment said it was looking like it was heading towards 82p.

So far he has been wrong 7 times out of 8 (something like that).

Many could think they wish they had sold at the top. The fact is if they were still interested in IOF then at some point a lower price would have looked a bargain, then bought, then got hit, lower price looks a bargain, hit again and so on.

re

'I would like to hear your opinion on my general Q - did great research detect the forthcoming management troubles or water permit issue or the Iodine market collapse or the refinancing options (loan)'

As for the events. At the time I didn't know the corrupt SQM bosses had been fiddling the books and were planning to crush the market, all that they had been doing is unfolding with more to come which I'm told means very tough times heading SQMs way. Check the chart if TA says short it (SQM), then do it (DYOR), as something is brewing, the one issue is the market doesn't know so they may buy.

Forthcoming management troubles. Oh yes sure we knew that, not even the CEO did, he just knew something was wrong perhaps seriously and that's why he had to go, and was immediately booked into a world leading clinic.

My guess is they trusted Jeff's judgement as he went to Uni with George Lantz I assume he was known to IOF and deemed suitable. After all even though he was ill I hear a complete plan was drawn up on what to do next.

Rumour has it that the chair being from much larger companies took the large company approach, dismissed the plan and together plants went where they shouldn't have been put. They saw lot's of water, didn't check the frac schedules for the area or the ppm, then forgot to apply for a DEA permit, and randomly decided to change the spec on 2 plants (io5 and 6)which affected their performance (fixed now).

Water permit.

As I pointed out a week or so ago, there was a paragraph you guys missed, or seemed to miss. Someone posted the section on here. It more or less says all final orders have to made public for viewing at the same time the applicant becomes aware.

IOF became aware at the same time as us. In the past they have become aware of various aspects from PIs. Hence I said it would be out as news before official news. So I have known all along we would know the answer before an rns, and have hinted about that many times. No leaks it's a public notification requirement.

A HE set a precedent when he granted the IOF permit. The precedent was that al other current listed LOIs were acceptable. As IOF's had details well in excess of most of them then yes there was every reason to be confident.

While on that topic the bureau also bend the rules the other way re LOIs. Internally they say a single LOI isn't acceptable, at least two needed.

Well if you know the water rules and laws on that front the bureau seem to be breaking it, adding in an obligation which contravenes water law.

On TA let's see how Zac gets on with his 10p when they update us this week.

As for the year end news. We say the delay and general comments suggest a G and G issue was spotted late on and had to be applied to H2.

I did say many times I was surprised how good H1 was.

[dr darkstar] 13/6/2015 19:17

Bullish engulfing candle should pressage an attempt to close the gap to 30p

[kaos3] 13/6/2015 16:54

senden - yes - spnaglish

[senden11] 13/6/2015 15:59

kaos3, interesting posts - from a linguistic point of view, at least. Are they being automatically translated by a third party translation service?

[kaos3] 13/6/2015 15:51

Only perfect operations can save the Co. Increasing output and decreasing OPEX.Pronto. It is so simple stupid. Forget all the rest till no debt and some spare cash in the bank. No major self inflicted or market black swans possible if debt free best operator.

You are all just too smart which expotentially increases risks.

[freshvoicem] 13/6/2015 15:46

Kaos
You have a point, too many black swans on this share. Most companies have one occasionally, but we have had far too many.
Most down to present management.
They blame G and G, but they chose them. They were the overconfident ones on water, they predicted output they never met.

[kaos3] 13/6/2015 15:25

ok thanks. You are also putting great work into it. Which I can thank you for and SG1 (not blue any more I think) and to all the rest. I would like to hear your opinion on my general Q - did great research detect the forthcoming management troubles or water permit issue or the Iodine market collapse or the refinancing options (loan) chosen... They were decisive factors imho which annulled all the hard research work. And to the point - it probably will remain so.

Simply following TA would be much better. And the bottom is in and it might be a strong buy at this very moment btw

[spike_1] 13/6/2015 14:51

It wasn't me, but it is now - hope that helps ;0)
Best wishes - Mike

[kaos3] 13/6/2015 12:37

Who of the blues is voting me down? Any guesses and the reason?

[varies] 13/6/2015 12:26

kaos3
Thanks so much. I see that a very recent price was $28.89.

[kaos3] 13/6/2015 11:28

market can stay solvent longer than me or IOF springs to mind. One can have hopes but I had many as a teenager

[varies] 13/6/2015 10:52

I have looked in vain for the current price of iodine. Could a contributor to this thread kindly provide this ?

[kaos3] 13/6/2015 09:29

Reading IOF BB for 4 years I doubt into the fundamental, market, financial analysis. BB knew it all but the results are here to see. TA would be much better for my purse. Analysis is proven worthless because there always is a BUT at the end

[superg1] 13/6/2015 09:15

I've just realised SCM bullmine are near pozo almonte too so I'll check on them later.

[superg1] 13/6/2015 09:13

Just to confirm the geography based on the SQM recent news and that Cosayach news (details to be established).

Cosayach mines (Cala Cala, Soledad and Negreiros) are all within a stones throw of each other near Pozo Almonte and on the aquifer that feeds the Tamarugal national reserve. As i recall Soledad is the only one with an EIA permit. Wee see what news develops.

SQM

Nueve Victoria mine current production 6000mt.

ACF Minera do have their mine in that area too. They do 2000 mt.

The news articles seem to be going on about environmental damage. contamination of the aquifer, and damage to the national reserve.

Rossi has been active against Cosayach in 2006, 2007 and 2011 (the well closures) and has now popped up again. Cosayach had well closures in 2014 too.

I would imagine they opened those up again after the courts forced the closure of them. Not only does it help them, but they know depletion of that aquifer could cause suspension of the rights for SQM.

Acf will be on the same aquifer.


I'll watch for further news.

SQM's other mine PV 3.2k mt (maxed out) is in a different area and relies on the San Salvador and Loa rivers.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 12/6/2015 22:55

Yes the tech bounce was from last year not 2 years ago, how time drags eh? Volumes and enthusiasm somewhat different then though. So what now? Sideways until some real news, production is now secondary to pricing as maintaining/growing market share in a low-price climate always favours the majors. Supply squeeze in Chile? Graham is banging that drum but I'm unconvinced.
The 2017 debt repayment/conversion has another possible element not yet discussed. Lenders may wish to adjust conversion terms but extend term by a further 2 years as the interest is decent in a low inflation/low base rate environment.
So, positive pricing news needed for bulls and more of the same will do bears, meanwhile a little bit of meaningless trading for the bored.
Quiet Summer expected...

[rhwillcoll] 12/6/2015 19:26

Indeed SG - thank you for finding this: it looks to be potentially devastating to iodine production in Chile, as you correctly pointed out. If anyone clicks onto the Google Spanish-English translation below, it can be read quite well in English:

Core Tarapaca Complaint Lodged Against SQM
Dated 5 June 2015 - Regional Council of Tarapaca, SQM, Superintendent of Environment

[monty panesar] 12/6/2015 19:25

So this is the geezer on the case of Cosayach from the tv clip that Superg put up.

[crosseyed] 12/6/2015 17:53

gadolinium,

Many thanks for your response.

I did indeed make an arithmetical error in arriving at the total RAM for methyl iodide (original post 33510 now corrected).

Anyway, I think the methodology is correct. What I have done is to tabulate all of the products cited on the Iofina website, both iodine and non-iodine based, and break down their constituent elements from their chemical formulae (found mainly through Google). I then assigned to each product a weighting derived from the MCS Iodine report for 2014 percentages. The weighting for the 6 non-iodine products are guesses on my part: 25% to lampricide and 15% to each of the rest. I then prorated the shipped products (1,942,000 lbs or 882 mT) less the 25 mT estimate of raw iodine sales amongst the weighted individual elements. That suggested a total of 436 mT of processed iodine for the 2014 sales. I'm thinking about the ramifications of that since IOsorb output was 328 mT plus possibly another 60 mT of re-cycled iodine, ie a shortfall of 48 mT made up from held stocks?

Interestingly, the weighted average product RAM for iodine-based and non-iodine-based products were very similar at 181.50 and 177.48 respectively.

If, and it's a big IF, my weightings are about right and the product list is about complete, then the variations in Iodine content (and indeed none in those 6 products), is properly accounted for. It might also provide an insight into why inventory values dropped so dramatically from 31/12/2013 to 312/12/2014, notwithstanding the fall in unit valuations.

Thanks again,
c

[gadolinium] 12/6/2015 16:53

Crosseyed post 33510

part reproduced below:


Take Methyl Iodide, H3CI. The RAMs are respectively H:1.008 (x 3), C:12.01, and I:126.9 giving a combined RAM of 141.9. Their respective proportions of total RAM would be H:0.021, C:.085, and I:0.894. So if 1kg of Iodine is used to manufacture the compound then the respective quantities would be H:0.023kg and C:0.095kg giving a total compound weight of 1.123kg ?

If that is correct, would it then be reasonable, given estimates of the relative proportions of derivative products (as for example the percentages given in the Iodine survey in the header), to analyse their chemical formulae and thereby arrive at the relative weights of the separate elements? Thus, it would then be possible to make a rough estimate of the weight of finished derivates produced per mT of Iodine.

----------------------------------------------------

Sorry for delay in reply, I was out yesterday and have just started to wade through 117 new posts.

Your RAMs and calculation are are correct, but I think the arithmetic is wrong.
On my calculation the weight of methyl iodide product should be 1/126.9 X 141.9 = 1.1182 Kg of product.

The problem is of course that the proportion of iodine in each product varies widely, whilst it is quite high (89.4%)for Methyl iodide (no doubt a big seller) another one of their important products is the preservative IPBC (2-Iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbonate, C8H12INO2). IPBC has RAM of 281.07 and therefore contains only 45.2% of Iodine. In which case 1kg of iodine would give 1/126.9 X 281.07 = 2.215 kg of product.
Obviously the final weight of product is inversely proportional to its iodine content for a given weight of iodine, since the other elements make up a greater proportion of the final molecular mass.

Perhaps between the two extremes we could calculate a rough figure for each Kg of iodine utilized but it is a calculation fraught with unknowns, as I am sure you already appreciate. Good luck!

[meb123] 12/6/2015 16:44

Thanks Spike, hopefuly they will have me on their list . #
Incidentelly , I dont think I will be a millionaire with IOF shares at least in the short-term but to add salt in the wound , I have lost my chance of becomming a Zimbabwan Dollar trillionaire :-)

[freshvoicem] 12/6/2015 16:44

Cross
Surely you are not thinking the new team has inherited some of the faults of the old team, perish the thought!

[crosseyed] 12/6/2015 16:36

sg1,

"One of them does the upper levels..."
If that were so we would surely have seen rather more than 327 mT in total during 2014.
I estimate IO2 achieved 160 mT in 2014 and may achieve 220 mT in 2015, a long way short of 450 mT. Still, they are moving slowly in the right direction.
I hold, and indeed have recently increased again, but my belief is taking a battering.
As you know, I maintain my own quite detailed spreadsheet. I am well aware of where Iofina could be. Their corporate misfortunes are not entirely market-induced.

c

[superg1] 12/6/2015 16:12

Why one day cross. One of them does the upper levels and that is where others should have gone. The sites are there and will get plants at some point.

Mortie I was just curious too as you had been absent for quite some time. Dust abatement is another use, they mention it in the Ames hearing the figure mentioned was around 4000 barrels for each well.

It seems to be a new issue courtesy of high salt content in Bakken produced water.

In the Carlisle objection he mentioned some areas were so high in salt they stopped drilling there.

I take it it's not significant to feature in company reports they don't mention water use rates overall either. One thing struck me re that anonymous company. There is plenty of illegal extraction in ND so a few don't want questions about how much water they use.

[crosseyed] 12/6/2015 15:49

Just a reminder of the IOsorb plant potential from Iofina's website...

Our WET® IOsorb™ plants are capable of producing between 50mt to over 450mt of iodine per annum each, depending on flow and iodine concentrations at these target locations. Locations with abnormally high concentrations will produce even more iodine than stated above.

Perhaps one day...

c