Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[n3tleylucas] 07/12/2013 19:25

All this lot are trading against each other.

Hi Bogg1e, I like you...

[bogg1e] 07/12/2013 18:57

Agreed chaps, the under the radar stance doesn't add up anymore, enough info has been in the open for long enough for all interested parties to be well informed.

SG, revenue for QFI is worth looking at over the coming few years. The Maersk and Aramco projects will take a perhaps a year or more to fully roll out, but the target revenues are achievable and in the QFI header. As for IOF over QFI or vice versa (not that you have engaged in that), as far as i am concerned both are spectacularly cheap if one can afford a medium term view, but bear in mind also people buying either share now are getting them at the best price vs time-to-target-value ever. Both QFI and IOF have spent the last 5+ years developing their value offering and remained at low prices throughout, both are now on the cusp of commercial success and/or rapid growth. The market has realised this with QFI which is why since i first mentioned it the price has risen 350%, however IOF is now consolidating for the next phase of growth; completing I0 4-6 which will be in Q1, and despite this knock-on delay for 2014's intended roll out, there will be another 3-5 following it by year end. IOF is poised to rise another 300%+ this coming year and this rise will recommence once the plant roll out is seen as smooth and ongoing (water or other developments aside of course). Thanks for all the good info and best of luck all.

[che7win] 07/12/2013 18:51

Superg,
Agree with most of want you say, but on a JV, why would we want to dilute our upside at this early stage?

I wouldn't want that, if we want to accelerate rollout, we should be able to debt finance in the next year.

[rogerbridge] 07/12/2013 18:27

I could not agree more SG. My thoughts exactly, it's time for the gloves to come off IOF is in a very very strong position and the share price does not reflect the enormously profitable future, even not taking, water, oil or helium into account. Further damage to the competitors share prices could be achieved by IOF having a higher profile.
Record iodine production, IO3 on line, IO4 and water imminent, time for IOF to kick some ass.
I also concur with you about the gold price. It will probably drop more over the next couple of months, but a lot of money could be made over the next few years on well financed junior miners with low cost production. As ever, the tricky bit is getting your timing right.

[n3tleylucas] 07/12/2013 18:17

what did you become?

[superg1] 07/12/2013 18:15

For those interested here are my thoughts on 'under the radar'. My point is when do the secrets end, or cross the obligation to report details. The OK boom will continue to turn up rich iodine sources, and we can't just accept the continued 'need to stay under the radar' so I'm not going to defend it anymore.

The guys in the US need to realise this is the AIM, where lack of information breeds automatic assumptions of bad news.

Most of us have worked out that very significant iodine, and indeed world class resources have been discovered.

I could see it was relevant for the last year or so, but other oil and mineral companies would not get away with it, claiming the need to keep quiet to secure leases.

I do consider the thinking behind it, to have been very appropriate, but as time has gone on aspects of the business have changed significantly reducing the risk, the patent being a major part of that.

IOF quite clearly to me have access to sites and iodine sources amounting to several 1000's of tonnes of iodine. In fact they quoted 19000 mt in a presentation. They have mentioned that over 100 sites of commercial iodine exist, and that was pre Oklahoma revealing it's full picture.


Clearly they seem to indicate having some significant iodine resources tied up in contracts. The main fear by IOF relates to competitors trying to ambush brine leases, sought by IOF.

I understand lease holder information is not easy to come by, and IOF got theirs from the Oil and Gas companies.

While lease grabbing by others is a risk, it appears to be so slim that it's not justifiable to withhold that information from shareholders for the following reasons-:

1. There is no incentive for Oil and Gas companies to pass the details to a competitor, in fact there is an incentive not too, potential revenue would be lost. The O and G companies won't know PPMs anyway

2 IOF seem to have a vast database of samples, no other company seems to be taking samples. IOF have already explained the sporadic incidence of some wells showing no ppm and some showing high ppm just a mile away. The chance of a competitor knowing where the best ppm locations are, is very slim.

3 Iodine brine leases are more or less unique to Oklahoma, they exist in Montana, but only by virtue of Iofina's interest. No other state deals in iodine brine leases. There has been no significant activity on brine leases for some years, prior to the arrival of IOF. Thus there are very few brine lease lawyers in existence.
Any employment of a lawyer by IOF for any lease, will no doubt, by virtue of a conflict of interest, mean that any competitor would simply struggle to find a lawyer with brine leases skills, to take the matter forward.

4 Such action by a competitor, with so many leases involved, and over 2 million acres to cover, would be high in cost and take a considerable amount of time. Their end game would simply be to block iof on leases, as they would not be allowed to produce iodine without the Oil and gas contract too, which is pointless due to the patent.
Competitors can not get into a bidding war with the Oil and Gas company to oust IOF as the recent patent protects the business model for many years. In theory over 90% of US brine is out of reach of any competitor by virtue of that patent.


The balance of risk of from the competitor, has taken a huge swing in favour of IOF over the last 12 months. The patent being a final nail in the coffin for others.

IOF may be surprised at the lack of understanding of the patent and how big it is, but until the resource potential is explained in detail no one will.

There seems to a big imbalance between what IOF seem to have, and what they publicly state they have.

It is down to investors to decide whether IOF are capable of rolling out the business plan and the likely timings to complete that. However they need to know what the resource is that IOF have.

No oil company would be allowed to say, we are drilling wells, we have some oil, but we are not telling you how much is coming out, where it is, or how big the potential resource is.

That's what funds and investors expect. If someone has a resource of any type, be it a metal or mineral, CPR's explain the potential.

At the moment it's all guesswork, and this far down the line, of proven tech, patents granted, and contracts with multiple big operators, it's time to tell investors what IOF have actually found.

The risk from competitors has become and excuse too far now, this is not a simple oil lease grab situation, it is virtually unique due to the brine lease split and should form no basis for comparison. Competitors will have no clue as to ppm content of brine. Over 90% of US wells have no commercial iodine.

The above is further supported by the recent actions of Chile operators. SQM have clearly taken production offline, in their words, due to an increase in production by other competitors, in Chile. Sirocco moved to inventory building, and now a suspension of operations. Cosayach have withdrawn their application to expand production.

Never has a new entrant to a market been in such a potentially dominating position. The timing of the apparent Chile collapse would seem to be a perfect stage to present IOF as a potentially major producer in the years to come. The Chileans have already dug a hole from which they are struggling to escape.

Having seen the reaction of the competitors, surely the time is perfect to state the case for IOF. It is an opportunity to further encourage Chile producers to cancel expansion plans, which they will surely do if they understand the IOF business model better, and what resources there may be in the US.

It may well encourage someone significant in the iodine industry, to do a JV with IOF and accelerate the business plan ( it could be someone with end users already in position), while Chile is struggling, and will do so for years to come.

I can't think of such a clear and visible business opportunity on the market anywhere. The scarce resources, barriers to entry, failing producing majors, and growing demand.

'It's not that simple' some say, but it is. All IOF need is delivery, if IOF calculations are right on operating costs, then there is no-one anywhere that could live with them on pricing. Capex too, per 100/1000mt is hugely different to that required of other operators.

The market price has dropped, and IOF get tagged with the slide seen on other iodine producers, when the true value is potentially so much different.

In other words, time to throw some dirt on the Chileans down in that hole, and tell investors the good news, and tell Chile just how bad it's going to be for them.

Too much time has been spent on expanding bad news, and apparently hiding the good news, in one line. Hiding of good news to investors means the company is trying to hide failure.

If it's bad news tell us, if good news then do the same. But no more 'under the radar', the justification for that is seems to be at odds with reporting obligations for the reasons mentioned above.


Then of course we are only talking about OK, when there are numerous sites in Texas and other states, which don't feature brine leases at all.

IOF have practically nailed an entire country's worth of iodine with one patent. That resource is looking like it will rewrite the iodine map to a level Chile never dreamed possible.

So while they are busy scratching their nether regions wondering what they hell to do in the accelerating costs arena in Chile. Put on some size 12 steel toe caps, and kick them where it's itching, very hard. There really isn't a lot they can do about it, other than take more production offline.

[leeming] 07/12/2013 18:03

Harry Cripps....that jogged a memory.
Pot belly, never crossed the half way line....what a role model for a 9yr old sitting in the old wooden stand hoping to be a half decent left back.

[n3tleylucas] 07/12/2013 17:49

Worst ever (I wasn't there thank god) - Harry Cripps Testimonial
Millwall v West Ham - absolutely zero segragation.

Speak to anyone there from either side and they'll tell you it was the worst they've ever seen. Included our lot steaming into the cold blow lane end with those 3 foot long railway spanners

[superg1] 07/12/2013 17:34

As posted earlier ASOS went £23 to £12 to £27 then £60.

Chart movements short term are irrelevant to long term holders, and in this case with multiple plants in the future at this point, it's hard to see what the big obstacle will be.

It certainly won't be iodine prices as we have shown the main suppliers can't afford the lower prices, with costs going up, not down.

I know some mention QFI, on my PE 15 scale QFI represent £22m profit v IOF's £13m on current SP's.

So which one is furthest ahead of itself. It is a question, as I haven't looked in depth re QFI revenue for the next 12/18 months.

The IOF figure would be pretty much covered by that one water depot never mind iodine.

[garfield31] 07/12/2013 17:33

Superg1 thanks for your reply in post 12022. When I read about the suggestion of IOF heating water thought that one of VLS's units would do the trick.

[n3tleylucas] 07/12/2013 17:08

Do you think you have taken this as far as you can?

[harrycripps] 07/12/2013 17:08

N3tleyLucas 7 Dec'13 - 13:36 - 12023 of 12029 0 0

Any chartists about? 133?



It does not look like it does it. Not a one.


Definitely NOT you.

[superg1] 07/12/2013 16:45

No one can argue with dumping the dog shares. In fact many just can't bring themselves to do it, so I have much admiration for those disciplined enough to make the decision. There is no point hanging onto something where the outlook has materially changed long term.

Good point worraps on timelines for individuals.

Take gold 5 years on and it's 60% up from back then, year on year not huge. On a slide and where will is stop. I would imagine there are some small gold miners that have seen disproportionate price drops on the back of that.

It was only months back that $3000 per oz forecasts were being made. One fund boss quotes 3000 to 5000 in 5 to 10 years, and in his quote says he doesn't care if it drops to 1200 or 1000 as he will simply buy more.

Where is the bottom for gold? There will be one.


While we can eye old prices of $500 plus not that long ago, what most won't know is that costs have rocketed and in fact full costs even at the bigger mines are now in excess of the actual gold price for some.

Full costs include all the infrastructure of a big company plus the huge capex they have.

So at some point it will be time to hunt out those smaller gold miners, that survive the price drop, as in theory they will be the ones with the best placed to make good returns on price hikes.

[n3tleylucas] 07/12/2013 16:04

"We are all here to make money"

[worraps] 07/12/2013 15:59

Eloquently described, Festario. As I have said myself many times, we are all different, with different time frames, and different life styles and needs. Your last paragraph sums it up so well. There should be no need for 'snobbishness' from so called 'investors' towards traders, I feel. We are all here to make money, whatever time scale is involved in that.

I am of the 'older generation', and my time scale is inevitably different to others who are in their 30s / 40s / 50s. Five to ten years would be acceptable to them. And as you say, we all have different ways of seeing when we feel full value has been reached.

I am here for 3 years at least, (one of those has passed already)! So if I sell in two years, does that make me a trader? I don't think so.

[festario] 07/12/2013 14:48

It would be a nice surprise to see IO4 handed over to the operational teams before end of 2013.
An RNS saying that would certainly help the market mood.

On the subject of Investors versus Traders.
I think there is a massive expanse of space in between those extremes.
For example, every time I buy a holding in a company, I expect to be in there for many years, harvesting sustainable dividend payments. That is exactly what I have done with GVC, and is my intention with IOF.

However, when I have been made aware of other opportunities such as QFI and HAWK, (thanks to SG and Bogg1e), I have to find the funds from somewhere.
I rid myself of GKP and others to do that... not because I am a trader, but because I have become entirely sick of them.
Also, I have sold some IOF in the 170p area, and bought some back in the 160p area and acheived very little.
We are talking about 5% or so of my entire holding, so it was no big deal.
The intention was to increase my shareholding at no expense. It rarely, if ever works out that way.

But... the main reason why the terms 'Investor' and 'Trader' are misnomers, is because every 'investor' will eventually sell their shares, at a point where they believe that full value has been reached. We all have to pay bills, buy cars etc.
Whether it be ASOS, GVC or IOF, none of us are ever really sure where that point will be. How could we be? But if we didn't sell some shares at some stage, we would be very foolish or dead.

This is why the vast majority of us are neither traders or investors, but somewhere in between on that sliding scale.

[engelo] 07/12/2013 14:19

ansana (1208) that's great news re I03: sounds like on full bore. Crudely speaking, if we count I01 as half I02 and I03 = I02, then our 2013 exit rate just went up by 1.5 to 2.5 = 66% .

SG will know this figure to a couple of decimal places :-)

Also from your post the I04 build by EOY may still be on; if not very close :-)

[crosseyed] 07/12/2013 14:12

che7win,
Thanks for the Investec link.
c

[n3tleylucas] 07/12/2013 13:36

Any chartists about? 133?

[garfield31] 07/12/2013 12:50

Superg1 O/T you have mentioned FUM which I have shares in and follow the board. Treat in same way as another share you have mentioned Nanco. Have you looked at VLS and if you have any general comments? Interesting times for company in USA with cancellation of Shell project in Louisana. Garfield

[che7win] 07/12/2013 12:34

Ansana,
Thanks, so sounds like the next plant could be ready January, maybe even two.

Cheers.

[neddo] 07/12/2013 12:23

hope so mate, no worries long term

[ansana] 07/12/2013 12:22

Che7win, yes it was from the company.

[johncsimpson] 07/12/2013 12:20

Made me smile neddo and who knows. Never say never . . . It's all coming together here.