Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[baguette] 26/7/2013 07:06

Engelo you mentioned a website 5658 which I tried but do not know how to get to Roosevelt county. Trying under the main site and using any combination of Atlantis Water Solutions all comes back with a string of nulls. Have you been able to find the application or anything to indicate the clock is now ticking again which would imply the "deficiency" mateer has been dealt with. If it is not perhaps there may be a legal issue with ROW not yet resolvable

I agree with you in principle but there can obviously be no value placed on this at all until the first application is granted. If and when that happens the potential value of water is worth is surely worth as much as selling 1000 -1500 mt of iodine i.e. not inconsiderable.

Please no further rude "banging on about it" comments from Skylite needed.

[che7win] 26/7/2013 07:06

Baguette,
I agree with your posts, the company need to under promise and over achieve. They risk getting to a point where they give dates and then slip.

We were also told about io#3 7th March:
"The delivery of the Group's WET® IOsorb™ IO#3 plant ("IO#3") is expected by the end of March 2013"

Those statements set the company up for a fall.

Note to company: build in some slippage to your dates!

[engelo] 26/7/2013 01:40

Durden (5662) Agree that the permit date is a bit up in the air. I've been going for the optimistic side ie 90 days/28th July. Noticed on the DNRC website fwiw that one of the permits for water from the Missouri was awarded faster than this.

Not just me though: at the AGM CF said something like '90 days and as of now we've already had 45 of them'. CF not noted for overstatement so imo quite possible that this timescale was indicated by DNRC themselves in their conversations with IOF.

[engelo] 26/7/2013 01:20

skylite:

iodine: think we simply want to have I01 and I02 finally operating as IOF want them to which hasn't happened yet but is on the edge of being achieved. Then progress on build/commissioning of I03/4 also vital to establish speed and momentum of rollout, which can then be confidently extended over a large number of months ahead and start to build defence against a cheap T/O.

The production numbers may be August/Sept imo and are the really big deal; IOF will need the new CEO in place for this and have everything planned to go on the offensive.

All about iodine, but.....

Water: imo we don't have to wait for revenues to put a value on water. The first permit granted (which can then be extrapolated to the next 2) is the key to including the value of the whole water division into brokers' estimates and into the spreadsheets of the more cautious instis. Potential profits (probably will be factored down at this stage admittedly) are well known on here thanks to SG and others.

If it comes to selling the water division the initial water permit and its implications for 2014 will (again imo) add considerable value, with no further capex required by IOF. Great position to be in.

[ramu kumar] 25/7/2013 23:56

Skylite, water was mentioned many times by SG, it is in the header and there were at least 2 rns about water.

To quote Lance in the March rns, "This is a milestone for the Company. Iofina remains focused on becoming a world leader in the production of Iodine and Iodine derivatives, however our non-core Atlantis water project has robust upside for the Company to maximise the potential of its assets."

Is it any wonder why people are banging on about it....

[roboben] 25/7/2013 23:35

Baguette - slippage is a simple fact of life in reality. All the more so when you are reliant upon others. In order for slippage to be a management problem there would have to be evidence that it was their fault. If it's down to the authorities it's hardly a problem of Iofina's management.Slippage is only a problem for the business if it affects an important deadline by being on the critical path en route to that deadline. As we don't have a specific deadline, nor a known critical path we can't conclude that there's any issue here, though we may speculate that the winter will provide months of spare time to absorb any slippage and render it irrelevant.

[skylite] 25/7/2013 23:34

I'm sure the board know what they are doing. Mindless local bureaucracy is the same the world over and Jeff signposted this at the presentation. No revenue from water this year, quite clear on that. So it's not factored in and won't be until it happens.

Why people are banging on about it is beyond me.

[baguette] 25/7/2013 23:18

Skylite its about opportunity and profit wherever it may appear.

[skylite] 25/7/2013 23:05

It's not about water it's about Iodine plant roll out. We're called Iofina. Plenty to get excited about over the next 2 months and it's all purple.

[baguette] 25/7/2013 22:51

Robo Your point 1 - I stated that Jeff had declared no water revenue this year - thats not my point its just that timescales are always important whether or not they are important for the moment. Permitting slippage is a bad management practise.

The original argument was that the JV with Halliburton was denied because they were too slow - not sure I buy that as things have been very slow working on our own and it now appears that a further 120 days or more could lapse even after we have sorted out the ROW issue.

We seem to be talking about application 1 = 80k bpd then making further applications then possible ND then possible swap. If all that is not significant I would like to know what is. This is a company that has no profit record yet and will have very little in 2013 so £10-£30m possible revenue is not insignificant whenever it occurs.

Embryonic companies especially AIM ones should rely upon regular updates of information until they become more mature. I do not buy the "it doesn't really matter at the moment" argument, everything about management matters.

[bogg1e] 25/7/2013 22:40

skylite thanks.

[skylite] 25/7/2013 22:18

They bought x amount off SQM to fulfil a 3 million order from India at $70kg. Simple maths will tell you it wasn't 400 tons. It was clearly an important order to meet as Lance went there himself to get the stuff and we paid over market price.

It clearly did the trick with the recipient as the board presentation stated in May they intend to become the biggest exporter of iodine derivatives into India at some point. As India use 7% of the worlds iodine that's some call.

[bogg1e] 25/7/2013 22:10

I cant remeber now but it was a couple of days ago. SG1 mentioned that iodine had been bought at the beginning of the year, several people added comments, one of which stated that the purchase was for 400 tons.

[freshvoice] 25/7/2013 21:54

Who said they had bought 400mt?

[bogg1e] 25/7/2013 21:25

Thats my thinking too naphar.

[naphar] 25/7/2013 21:18

Don't know where enough money wod have come from to buy in that much Bogg1e

[bogg1e] 25/7/2013 20:49

The accounting year is the same as the production year I believe. Jan 1st to Dec 31st. if it was bought in late January then the purchase would be on this years books, which we don't see til September.

[freshvoice] 25/7/2013 20:40

Boggle
If they bought that much where is it in accounts?

[bogg1e] 25/7/2013 20:18

Also, another thought. SG1 (and i believe others) mentioned that, at the AGM presentation, it was stated that the value added per kilo for derivatives ranged from $10 to $50 per kilo. However, the question is value added to what?

A) In house Iodine at $40-45 per kilo (after costs etc), or
B) Bought in stock iodine at $50-70 per kilo

If A, at eg $45 per kilo, a low margin derivative would equal $55pk and a high margin derivative $95pk. Now at $55 per kilo that's break even or even loss making.

If B, at eg $60 per kilo, a low margin derivative would equal $70 and a high margin product $110, both of which is greater than the cost of raw iodine and therefore profitable.

I assume therefore that the $10-50 value uplift per kilo, is based on the price of bought in rather than in house iodine. In which case the value of derivatives should be higher than assumed, especially for calcultaing revenues post IO#2+3 onwards. Its also a great way to stay under the radar without actually lieing about the figures. Any thoughts?

Lastly, are we sure that IOF bought in 400 tons of iodine last january. That would be approx 1.5% of global output and cost $20-28 million!!! I know IOF have the capacity to process that amount p.a but still that's a lot of iodine!

[joeywald] 25/7/2013 19:24

Hope no one has any online dating shares. BBC1 Scotland currently broadcasting an expose of the online dating business and they don't come out well.

[bogg1e] 25/7/2013 19:23

Little question "1600mt for iodine 'cake'" has been mentioned a few times from the AGM. Does this mean that IOF have customer prepared to buy this amount of raw idone, or do they mean they (IOF) will be keeping 1600 tons aside for their own derivatives (IOC) and any production beyond 1600 tons can be sold as raw iodine (in prilled form?) Tia.

Also I assume that the reasoning behind 1600 tons is to provide IOC with a safe stock of iodine to cover 2 years worth of production (at 800 tons p.a). Or are there other reasons? Or have i totally misinterpreted it? ;-)

[baguette] 25/7/2013 18:46

A couple of months or so ago several PI's reckoned they had the ear of Lance and were almost mates, then when he took a back seat it seemed Jeff Plein was very e/mailable and we were told that the BOD were very interested in PI sentiment through the BB, then we had the PI meeting, then the AGM.

Fine but now it appears we get nothing. I fully realise that there are the 5 key deliverables to work through but lets be honest, water was a very big deal not long ago and comments like "its not important only iodine matters" do not wash with me. It IS a big deal as it could fund plenty of things (prilling tower etc)and

I find it very strange that we cannot get what I would have thought was a reasonable piece of information "is the application running with the deficiency question answered or not". Remember we are talking 80,000 bpd potential in phase 1 with a margin of lets just say 60c pb could = (changing currencies) £10 million per annum. Now that is one whole lot more than any profit we could make this year.

Yes Jeff did state that we should expect no income from water this year ( he did say that they had dropped the baton (my words) earlier also said the granting of the second application was 99.9% certain) but In the absence of info I am beginning to assume the quietness on all fronts is not good news. Is there an insurmountable problem (has anyone got a grip on this)

Come on Board if anything we say gets back to you please come back into our World, we have a right to know surely on such a key issue

[n3tleylucas] 25/7/2013 17:57

"the typical aim pattern of hazy promises and elastic deadlines"

A bit of insight emerging today.

[pwcarnall] 25/7/2013 17:34

Be careful what you wish for.The last thing you want is overkill like you get from qpp and coms or in the past from nighthawk .A quick fix then back below where it started.Or worse a ceo like the guy from mos whos sold after the last 2 trading updates.Like it or not since Lance has gone iof is conforming to the typical aim pattern of hazy promises and elastic deadlines.For me the new ceo cant come fast enough but I continue to hold.