Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bogg1e] 01/1/2014 13:42

Hi engelo, im sure i got those figures from woody or noli perhaps on the "other" thread :-)

Your right, the $35k per tone is sell price - opex, it should also include a discount for tax. Well spotted and My apologies :-)

As for the additional plants, the minis are very exciting as they target 800 to 5000 ppm brine sources with throughput at 3-8k bpd (I think). A decent combination of ppms and volume means a mini could easily equal one IO plant. This is a pure assumption but i am going to assume that 3 mini plants equals 2 IO plants, so hopefully by end 2014 we shall have IO1-9 + 3 minis. That would approximately double IO1-6 production (considering that IO1 is a low production proof-of-concept plant)

As for all this waffle bandied about of late that IOF could run out of cash before being able to implement these plants is complete rubbish. In 2014 the early teething problems faced in 2013 will be a thing of the past. I wanted 350-400p with IO6 up and running and was expecting it by Christmas, but i can wait til the end of 2014. Have a goodun :-)

[engelo] 01/1/2014 13:21

Bogg1e: thanks for a very useful analysis. Have you got a source for the $10-40 additional net revenue per ton for derivatives? Presumably $10 covers bulk chemicals, and $40 exotics which are presumably much lower volume, so guessing additional net revenue average on your figures may be nearer $20 than $30.

Tax rates have been discussed previously on the thread but can't remember the conclusion. You've allowed $10 tax in the derivatives calc, but afaics none for raw iodine at $35,000 net per ton.

This approach could readily be extended to cover projected additional plants in 2014 :-)

[bogg1e] 01/1/2014 11:38

Count Chris, (off the top of my head rather than my notes so if wrong pls correct me people) Derivatives are very important as they still comprise the core of the company and adds $10-40 additional net revenue per kilo of produced iodine. Assuming net revenue per kilo is $25 per kilo ($50 - $15 [opex] = $35 - $10 for tax), then every kilo is worth between $35 - $65 per kilo. Thats $35-65,000 per ton. At 400 tons per year derivative output atm = $14-26,000,000 p.a. After IO4-6 constructed we then have raw iodine to sell on top. At this point we shall pass the 1000 ton annualised output target. 600 tons at $35,000 net per ton = $21,000,000 additional revenue. We would have to go quite a bit further before raw iodine revenue equals the value derived from the derivative side and will probably remain the case until 2015 when i would expect raw iodine sales to eclipse the revenue from derivatives.

If we combine the lowest net revenue from above; $14 mil for derivatives and $21 mil for raw iodine = $35 mil. 127 mil shares / $35 mil revenue = eps of 27 cents or 18 pence per share. On a p/e of 10 = £1.80, 20 = £3.60, but earlier this year IOF was trading on a p/e of 75 based on projected earnings, so that shows you how much value the market is prepared to attribute to the IOF share price.

[count chris] 01/1/2014 11:06

SG1 I've traded few times but bought in yesterday at £1 for the medium/long term on the basis that there should be a few positive RNS' in the year ahead. Quick question - they take about producing derivatives - is this significant or should I just look at tonnes of iodine produced and forget the rest as seems to be the case on the boards?

[noli] 01/1/2014 10:06

Silverpen, they are not related in the slightest, one is in regards to kerogen seeping into the ground water the other is related to water sales extracted from river water.

[che7win] 01/1/2014 09:40

I received a reply on the Shareprophets article from IOF:

"I don't think he has a good understanding of the company."

Too right IMHO, it says more about the author than the company.

[silverpen] 01/1/2014 08:36

Re Superg1 comments Christmas Eve in relation to the water permit. Following Red Leaf's (and indirectly Tomco Energy)water permit approval is there anything the IOF can learn from their application?

[n3tleylucas] 01/1/2014 06:15

and while you sleep...

[n3tleylucas] 01/1/2014 04:15

Good one...



Sleep yeah...

[n3tleylucas] 01/1/2014 00:41

Why would you buy gold stocks and be in this? It's a hedge at best.

Do you even know why gold goes up?

And... you should only wish folk a happy new year when it's gone midnight where you are.

Happy new year.

[superg1] 31/12/2013 16:05

If you mean the PDTG then yes, public notification periods are relevant for multitude of applications. Objections a rare and usually relate to aquifers.

IOF's application is downstream of about 99% of existing permits, so there is no way they can affect the vast majority of permits in Montana, if any.

[naphar] 31/12/2013 16:01

Yes Schroder it does, I think SG meant it could go straight to PDTG if they are happy wih the new info, at which point it would enter the public notice period.

[shroder] 31/12/2013 15:26

Does it not need to made public before the final decision?


__________________________
superg1 31 Dec'13 - 07:47 - 14184 of 14223 1 0

CK

The good thing about the Jan water meeting is it could just move to permit awarded PDTG, if not it will go to a hearing. It's not a potential permit fail day, as some may think.

[bobbyshilling] 31/12/2013 14:34

A healthy, happy and prosperous New Year to everyone.

[superg1] 31/12/2013 14:17

JJ (and others) thanks for the gold advice I thought there had to be someone somewhere with some good details.

IMO there is no point trying to find the best gold plays once gold is back in favour, best to get the hard work done now, and it makes potential easy pickings later.

It's a bit of a strange scenario where the bigger mines suffer badly re all-in costs due to the massive infrastructure. Many are said to have an all in costs of $1200 per oz currently. In such circs they as seen across many sectors, they go into defence mode, cutting costs and preserving current positions. Smaller set ups with much lower costs and on decent revenue meanwhile can carry on with some expanding. At some point, in theory a price gap will appear, but the market treats all in the sector the same, and opportunities therefore pop up.

I'm going on re gold, but it makes no difference which sector we talk about. All we have seen in Chile re mines going offline, Sirocco suspending ops, and Cosayach cancelling plans. It's all related to going too hard and fast on spends into a rising price. The prices went up but capex and opex took a steep climb too.

All Chile iodine producers have the same issue. High capex, high opex, dwindling water supplies = seawater = big capex plus opex to go up. High energy prices too. If the peso now strengthens they have a real problem. All the current issues have come about in favourable exchange rate terms.
Energy demand is high, prices for energy are high, the infrastructure to supply energy is poor. As demonstrated one company quotes that pumping seawater will account for a third of it's energy costs.

The new Gov is to raise taxes for miners, take back control of water and so on.

At the end of the day the miners have to service their sports cars, and buy those luxury goods, and it's not cheap. Chile need skilled staff in their mines, and there are not enough to go around, so they have to pay good wages to get them.

Chile are stuck with their high prices, and costs will keep going up.

The courts suspending the operations of existing power stations doesn't help the energy supply situation.

Things may be tough, but IOF are turning on iodine supplies, not turning them off like the others are.

Just for 3/4 of the smaller mines the total needed for intended expansion was $300 mill plus. Most or all cancelled now, and it didn't really add up too much in increased production. How many sites, and how much iodine could IOF produce with $300m capex?

[1madmarky] 31/12/2013 13:45

Yep, happy new year to all.

[orslega] 31/12/2013 13:26

indeed, yes roll on for action packed Q1, which starts tomorrow.....

.....really didn't expect to be able to add a good tranche at 84p...better than Xmas!lol

happy new year to all IOF longs....

[uriney] 31/12/2013 13:14

Neddo,

No, the market is closed but it's more or less back to the opening price, roll on Q1 that's when the fun will start.

Happy new year one and all, health and wealth for 2014.

Uriney

[neddo] 31/12/2013 13:12

will we end up blue, another penny or so will do?

[phoenixs] 31/12/2013 12:58

just returned from hols. Not happy about share price but am mre than happy to hold and add. IOF have underachieved in 2013 and that is why we are at these levels. However, the share price now is IMO too low for where the company is at present. Given that they have now seen the light and have been ultra cautious with their forecasts in their recent rns, I believe that 2014 will be a great year. Happy New Year to all, including the derampers!

[iof multibagger] 31/12/2013 12:48

Ansana good post to the point. happy new year to everyone

[che7win] 31/12/2013 12:23

Rodrod,
Welcome aboard, great entry price for you.

[rodrod1] 31/12/2013 12:18

Happy New Year to you all - only just joined the party so hoping for great results here!

[rogerbridge] 31/12/2013 12:05

engelo,I agree, but Lary Edelson has been pretty accurate for a few years now, but who knows? Too early to tell.
Anyway, IOF best place for my 2014 funds.

Happy New year everybody.

[monty panesar] 31/12/2013 11:48

You would think Dow Chemicals, who I believe have been IOF's biggest customer over the last few years,like to have their supplies from various sources as part of risk management. The example of the Chilean Port strike earlier on in the year is an example of why they would want this.