Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 25/6/2015 07:25

The Chilean miner has issued a statement clarifying the status of arbitration proceedings between the company and state development body CORFO, asserting that neither party has walked away from the negotiating table. Meanwhile, SQM is said to be facing increasing pressure over its water usage for its iodine operations in Tarapaca.

[freshvoicem] 25/6/2015 00:41

More news in theclinic.cl regardingSQM. It looks as though it is 'the private eye' of Chile and has it in for SQM.
They have three articles today but my translation is not that good to see exactly what they have. One minister has left the government by the looks of it and the CORFU/lease situation is going against them.

[freshvoicem] 25/6/2015 00:41

More news in theclinic.cl regardingSQM. It looks as though it is 'the private eye' of Chile and has it in for SQM.
They have three articles today but my translation is not that good to see exactly what they have. One minister has left the government by the looks of it and the CORFU/lease situation is going against them.

[bogg1e] 24/6/2015 23:26

Ok, Ive sent the email to lance regarding the actual weight of iodine in the crystallised iodine they quote in their production numbers. I shall inform you of the answer in due course. Cheers.

[bogg1e] 24/6/2015 22:08

Thanks SG. Much appreciated.

[superg1] 24/6/2015 22:06

I see the market has read the SQM news and treated it as BS.

Wise move, or perhaps they now realise how SQM got those leases.

[bogg1e] 24/6/2015 22:03

Thanks chaps. I shall send a question to lance to make sure, otherwise doing the numbers on production vs sales could get a bit messy. Thanks again.

[superg1] 24/6/2015 22:02

Bogg1e

They have set up a water depth within the government now but water reforms have had delays.

For Santiago they have just stayed the driest June for 50 years, the situation continues to deteriorate.

Seawater will be the norm in a he coming years and already is at least he big mines. SQM will have to go that way too.

As a comparison as I said recently if they suspend water rights to protect the national reserve then in oil terms it's like Saudi and a few others switching off their entire oil supply.

The facts around that news is being looked at by someone.

[naphar] 24/6/2015 21:07

Bog
to my understanding they are quoting the weight of crystaline, so i think your comments are correct, 15%~ less in prilled form

[rhwillcoll] 24/6/2015 21:04

Bogg1e: I'm almost certain it's MT pure iodine. That is, 99.5%, not 85%. I've just been reading the FinnCapp report. Otherwise, their figures wouldn't make sense. They are talking about our current production numbers and based on $30 per kg of that. Would like someone else to confirm, though, as I'm only 99.5% sure.

[bogg1e] 24/6/2015 19:33

Che, sure but if 15% of that is water then the actual production numbers in terms of iodine must be 15% less. After all they are selling iodine tonnage based on iodine content. Are they quoting iodine production based on iodine content or dies it contain 15% water? Thanks for feedback though.

[che7win] 24/6/2015 19:23

Boggle,
IOF quote crystalline form:


"The Board announces today that the Company expects to exceed the upper end of its production target of 220-260 metric tons of crystalline iodine in H1 of 2015 from its IOsorb® plants. The Company now expects to produce over 280 metric tons of crystalline iodine in the period. "

[bogg1e] 24/6/2015 19:10

Sorry to go on about it, but if their quoted crystalline production is 328 tonnes for 2014, that means in fact that they only produced 280 tonnes of pure iodine.

[bogg1e] 24/6/2015 18:09

naphar, thanks, but from the notes taken it seems that crystalline iodine includes 15% water whereas sold iodine is based on iodine content only. When Iofina quote crystalline production are they referring to its iodine content (ie once the 15% water is deducted from the volume)

[naphar] 24/6/2015 17:54

Tackems (I think it was you that posted about flake)

This was the first meeting where they mentioned flake. For the avoidance of doubt, IOF do not deal in, or plan to deal in, a form of iodine known as flake.

We do crystal and prilled form only, and announce our output based on crystal tonnage.

[naphar] 24/6/2015 17:44

Sg
I believe (but happy to be corrected by those at AGM if i misunderstood),that both sales agreements and offtake agreements can attract discounts based on the volumes involved. A discount for providing plant funding as part of an offtake agreement would therefore be in addition to standard bulk buying discounts.

[bogg1e] 24/6/2015 17:39

SG, I have noted that in june this year, we are expecting the Chilean government to make a ruling regarding the use of water in the Atacama region, which would reduce water usage from (off top of my head) from 560 liters per second to about 150 liters per second.

Also, that Cosayach are to be taken to court in june.

Is there are news on this front? Do we have actual dates for these cases? Tia.

[ridicule] 24/6/2015 17:01

One of the greatest difficulties for PIs with IOF, whose margins are iodine price critical, is that they are blind sided on the daily/weekly price for iodine. IOF on the other hand must be all over the current price on any given day as they are continually negotiating with their customers. Why do they not publish a weekly spot iodine price on their website? We could then all have a better understanding and early notification of any movements.

[rogerbridge] 24/6/2015 16:15

SG, one reason I remain invested here for the long term, just waiting for the turn around.

[superg1] 24/6/2015 16:03

Naphar

I had heard off-take agreements could include funding of a plant but that may involve a discount.

I say shove it due to the iodine market circs which I'm backing to see significant rises as we move forward. Then end users will be begging to pay for a plant just to create a supply.


The only thing stopping IOF expanding is cash. So why not dilute and gain $10 mill. The answer is obvious and that's the share price

Sit tight, get the ducks lined up and the iodine producer market will do the rest.

It's a fact

SQM 2012 best production ever 10,900 mt.

Cosayach pre 2011 6000mt.

Algorta the newbie now 3000mt at best but figures suggest about 2,500.

Even if Cosayach are now back at 6000mt (unlikely) then demand growth of a 3% average as quoted means by the end of 2015 demand is up about 5000mt from the start of 2011.

Algorta will have covered 2,500 to 3000 of that. IOF now feature on 600mt.

SQM have dropped 1700mt of production or 3000mt plus when adding in RB.

Thus Algorta and IOF new production has been wiped out by RB bust and SQM drop in production.

Who covered the demand rise,?.... Inventory plc.

In 2010 through 2011 SQM dropped 5,300mt of inventory into the market over an above their production. Produced 18,800mt sold 24,100.

Yes all old news, but it's the figures then and now that determine where the market supply demand should be over the next year.

The production doesn't add up re demand growth. Demand goes up production has gone down. Inventory events have hidden that.


How does a significant over-supply situation turn into equilibrium in just a few months. On paper nothing changed re the supply rate between then and now yet 'equilibrium' in the market appeared.

There will be an actual change shortly when what RB had left to supple goes to zero. They supplied around 1600mt last year and will have maintained that rate until any day now. When it's gone it's gone.

SQM forecast a 1600mt rise in demand this year.

1600 extra, 1600mt gone, SQM dropped 1700mt. A 5000mt gap due to hit.

[angel of the north] 24/6/2015 13:56

Any sales agreement may light the blue touch paper imo.

[naphar] 24/6/2015 13:49

SG
I mentioned that sales agreements are preferred to off take agreements, because offtake agreements fix prices and sales ageeements do not.

Offtake agreements may include a financing agreement for a plant, but they might not include that.

They said they are near to signing a sales agreement.

[severnof9] 24/6/2015 13:30

SQM have issued a Form 6K to the SEC re the arbitration dispute with CORFO. Water rights are not the subject of the arbitration but are addressed by SQM because these have been raised in press coverage

hxxp://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Filings/Form++6-K++++++++CHEMICAL+%26amp%3B+MINING+CO+OF++For%3A+Jun+23/10673203.html


The £17 million settlement is addressed in this note. The note says it is a suggested payment by the arbitrator. The note provides a useful map of SQM sites but it seems the authors are conflicted having provided advice to SQM

hxxps://www.btgpactual.com/Research/OpenPdf.aspx?file=28688.pdf