Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[ramsey11] 11/1/2014 11:17

Bernard lol

[the librarian] 11/1/2014 11:13

Information at the time of the 100k buy, looks like a buy on the mid price
08-Jan-14

12:36:15

110.00

100,000

Buy*

100.00

101.00

110.00k

O

9079525422

111.0

2028

AT


109.0


111.0

12:36:02

2,028



363

9079525422

111.0

472

AT



109.0


111.0

12:36:02

472

[n3tleylucas] 11/1/2014 11:04

Summary Dorset? Rampers/Clowns 0:5 Netley/SHONNY/jonnybig et al

[bobsworth] 11/1/2014 10:45

Fingers crossed that large US government order for iodine has now been shipped by Iofina!

[superg1] 11/1/2014 10:44

Water

I'm ignoring the engineering point as it's just a spec point, bigger pipes, pumps etc. so an easy fix

Beneficial use.

I have seen a few comments about water going across the border into ND. Having let the dust settle for some time, I am of the same opinion.

With the WAWS exclusion zone, then I can see why they may think some may apply in Montana to take water into ND.

In fact, if true, that suspicion may have been supported by the fact John Ames (many small depots in ND) put in an application in Montana, in Roosevelt county to transport water out of the state into ND. It's the one just above AWS on the site

This is the core of his app.

PAST USE OF WATER
WATER MARKETING FROM THE MISSOURI RIVER, ROOSEVELT COUNTY.

PROPOSED CHANGE
CHANGE A PORTION OF THE WATER RIGHT FOR TRANSPORT AND USE OUT OF STATE.


It's about the same time as the AWS application.

So all I think it is about is IOF assuring the bureau that they are not planning to do a John Ames.

As posted by you Ors, what they want it for has already been declared

Iofina has secured strategic locations along the water source and main traffic thorough-ways to market water to support existing production and exploration in proven oil and gas fields such as the Elm Coulee Field, as well as support on-going exploration and drilling throughout nearby counties.


So imo (we are all entitled to them) it's highly likely the permit will eventually be awarded.

[bobsworth] 11/1/2014 10:43

Superg1 Thanks a lot for the detailed update on the likely impact of Chilean cut backs in mining on the world prices of iodine. As iodine will remain in demand for years to come its price will be determined by world production rates.

[dorset64] 11/1/2014 10:35

Morning all, arrived back from Aussie trip (don't mention the cricket lol) to find nigh on 600+ posts since I left. Without reading everyone would anyone be kind enough to say a snapshot of the conversations/points raised/co. contacts over the last month or so were. TIA.

[superg1] 11/1/2014 10:31

Taken from the conference call details on Seeking Alpha.

SQM have bee moving to operational efficiency and as we know are lying off 400 staff and have closed high cost mines.

Since those conference call Sirocco have suspended operations and Cosayach withdrew their expansion application.

The acions of closing mines and comments below suggest SQM re defending the price, and probably looking for a price rise

Next 2 years maintenance capex only, that tells you expansion on hold

.................................................................


Fernando Ferreira - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division

Perfect. I just had one last question, the follow-up on the CapEx side. Do you think we could see CapEx going closer to maintenance levels over the next 2 years or we should still expect higher than maintenance?

Patricio G. Contesse - Chief Executive Officer and President

I -- in general, I would say, conceptually, we will go to maintenance CapEx.

Operator


Wesley R. Brooks - Morgan Stanley, Research Division

Just one question from me. On iodine, just you talked about prices easing partly because of the higher supply, but also demand being at the low end of the range. Do you think that the lower demand has been due to the high prices in the last year or 2? Or were there other factors that were really impacting the demand?

Patricio G. Contesse - Chief Executive Officer and President

Our view that we think that high prices has affected it, has to be some explanation.

Wesley R. Brooks - Morgan Stanley, Research Division

Okay. And then, so I guess, this comes down to you've been testing the elasticity of demand and those prices were a bit high. So how should we think about this going forward? At what level do you feel demand starts to pickup again to be running at sort of 4% plus?

Patricio G. Contesse - Chief Executive Officer and President

We have our numbers in our mind, but I apologize that I cannot give it to you because at this same moment, we are negotiating with our clients for the contract for next year. I cannot give you the range of what we think will be the price that could stabilize the situation that you're talking about.

Wesley R. Brooks - Morgan Stanley, Research Division

Okay, understood. But then so, I guess, from Q1, we should be able to see whatever the -- or have a good indication of what the new level will be?

Patricio G. Contesse - Chief Executive Officer and President

Yes. Absolutely.

[orslega] 11/1/2014 09:57

superg - good post re iodine prices, looking good for Iofina imo

[orslega] 11/1/2014 09:55

bocker/superg re Water

13th December 2013 RNS

"The application will require additional information, primarily with respect to offtake engineering and beneficial use of the water"

Worth reading the interims again (linked below)....issued on 25th September 2013. (Apart from Water, lots of detailed info on plans etc although now refined...or underplayed imo)

On the engineering side, note this..."Iofina has received positive feedback from the State". So looks like someone within Montana Water Dept took a closer look and wants clarification. One would not expect that to be a stumbling block as surely it would have cropped up much earlier in the process...bearing in mind the whole process/applic has been going for over 3 years (from memory)...

"Beneficial use of water" - so proof of marketing/water demand should be the remaining hurdle to evidence.....seem to recall that was never considered a problem - plenty of demand based on marketing.

indeed, seem to recall CF stating something like 99% certain of Water permit being granted - he is of course relying on the retained Consultants (who are presumably experts in such matters) - so they'd better not be complacent at the meeting on 30th January 2014!

Water Project – Non-core

Iofina Resources is at an advanced stage of its Fresh Water Right permitting process for the State of Montana. Iofina has secured strategic locations along the water source and main traffic thorough-ways to market water to support existing production and exploration in proven oil and gas fields such as the Elm Coulee Field, as well as support on-going exploration and drilling throughout nearby counties. All right-of-ways between the proposed pumping station and water depot have been secured. Iofina submitted a detailed engineering study to show the feasibility of this high capacity water delivery
system. Iofina has received positive feedback from the State and has actively marketed the water in the area to oil and gas operators, trucking companies, drilling companies, and other local fresh water users.

hxxp://iofina.com/perch/resources/2013-interim-results.pdf

[superg1] 11/1/2014 09:40

Bobsworth
10 Jan'14 - 19:24
Does anyone know what's happening with the Iodine prices?

Fingers crossed it will re-strengthen as Chilean production continues to be cut back.

Bob

In the last few days a circular went out re the Roskill report comments, indicating prices may soften. However that conclusion was based on expansion predicted by the Chile mines over the last 12 months.

Those reports take some time to compile. Someone has spoken to the author and for them it's just unfortunate that almost straight after the report release this happened-:

SQM have shelved expansion but also closed mines and are laying off 400 staff.

That has been mentioned before, but is contained in note by credit corp capital too

SQM: restructuring would include laying off 400 workers

According to a local news source, the company's restructuration plan, which includes the firing of 400 workers, should be finalized over the coming weeks. The program is part of a plan to improve SQM's competitiveness. The company stated that its goal is to maintain its productive levels in its most profitable areas.

That note is dated 29th October and you can see the wording re 'the next few weeks'

'maintain its productive levels in the most profitable areas'

The whole point of expansion was to exit to higher costs mines where the resource is depleting. Hence they closed them and as we know shelved expansion.

So that affect on the market re supply demand has yet to kick in and is absent from Roskill's forecast.

I hear those closed mines wipe off 2000 to 3000mt production, but clearly those mines had higher costs due to resource depletion, that combined with the softened price made them unviable.

Sirocco

We know they had no inventory as they suspended supply H2, to allow them to reduce their delivery times to gain better prices.
Their plan for this year had been to hit 1600 mt and for next year 2000mt.

We know in Q3 they did 320mt.

Then at the start of December they suspended operations 'temporarily' but laid off 150 staff. That sounds like the entire mine workforce to me. Starting back up and sorting all of that out won't happen overnight. I have serious doubts that they will appear again.

Key points.

We said for some time their ALP would fail and their comments re that has a hint of BS about it. I think they have finally realised it's corrosion not wear and there is nothing they can do about it.

Hence they say 'when' they start back up they will use the heap leach method meaning 1000mt per year, but 1300 for this year due to the inventory.

So the actual 1600 forecast for 2013, was downgraded late on to 1500, but then a suspension came. We know they had produced 1070 but the end Sept. 530mt short of their full year forecast. From the 1300mt comment for this year, it sounds like the mine stopped producing just after Q3.

Not forgetting, the VP resigned in 2013. That's the guy I had comms with claiming their plans to expand would be money down the drain and wasn't viable, I did go on a bit about a number of comments in their releases which.
I have been saying they would disappear for some time, now suspended.

I seriously doubt they will re-appear as a producer of iodine. By Q3 they were reporting $41 a kg and had already been saying they were being hit on prices due to their supply times.

So they are no further forward now. The fixed costs won't go away, and if they intend to produce less that opex per kg goes up. Miner taxes to increase, costs rising anyway and so on.

So we were very sceptical about their claims, and it has all come to pass.

You can see from the above, the chances of them returning, is highly unlikely.

We'll have to wait and see in their next update.


Cosayach

Plans to expand as covered by Roskill but in November in the applications system in Chile their expansion application was marked off as withdrawn.

I will look it up.

Thus Roskill's comments re expansion in Chile are null and void, not their fault, the situation changed quickly, we saw it coming, they didn't, and obviously accepted what each company was saying.

So to summarise. The affects of the above have yet to impact the iodine market. I understand producers tend to offload inventories in H2.

Roskill worked off the comment that all mines were to expand.

Not only are they not to expand, iodine production has been taken out of the market and that lost supply has yet to affect the market, it should start to this year.

So in theory with 2 SQM mines closed and Sirocco potentially gone (we'll have to wait and see), 1500mt could be gone from Sirocco for good.
SQM closed mines (working on getting data) are hinted at for a 2000 to 3000mt loss of production.

You can see that's potentially 3500mt wiped off the market to kick in this year.

As we demonstrated in a report, the main country imports for iodine went up in H1 13 v H1 12.

Not forgetting of course that as the price drops some markets lost on the $100 spot price high are returning.

We said all along SQM and Chile would not want to see prices below $45, and at those prices mines would struggle and have to go defensive to protect the price.

No hindsight there, it's all in historical posts and it's happened.

Therefore from the more up to date information, logic would seem to support that prices will rise due to the drop in production.

The average demand rise is 3.5%% per year so we can potentially add another 1000 mt figure to the demand by the year end.

[n3tleylucas] 11/1/2014 02:36

bs, it's from Wednesday, 12.36 and was a whopping great sell.

[engelo] 11/1/2014 01:31

Artfully concealed under the obscure title 'Latest Iofina Share Trade' is a 100,000 trade @110 timed 16.41 . Hmm. Someone's keen.

[n3tleylucas] 11/1/2014 00:01

You know as much about p/e's as you do about support cheggers, fa.

[monty panesar] 10/1/2014 22:49

Thanks Naphar, I am still trying to get to grips with the iodine market.

[naphar] 10/1/2014 22:39

Monty, logically the costs will be part fixed and part variable, for instance royalty payments will normally be variable (depend on output, or essentially fixed per kg), materials used in conversion will be variable, staff costs etc will be relatively fixed, so yes, a large portion of the cost per kg will vary (staff etc) as it is absorbed over differing levels of output, the higher the output the lower the cost per kg

[monty panesar] 10/1/2014 22:05

The 20kg cost of production for now makes sense considering they weren't at full capacity a few week ago.The costs I assume are fixed and then fall with flow rate ppm's etc?

[meadow2] 10/1/2014 21:21

gadolinium - Thanks for that.

[gadolinium] 10/1/2014 21:12

Bob/Meadows,
In post 13442 Gary Gatchell in reply to Che7win stated he "would go with $20/kg for now" (point 12 of that post).

[meadow2] 10/1/2014 21:04

Bobsworth - The cost of production was mentioned in a reply to a communication with a poster who contacted the company (some posts back!). the reply seemed to indicate that costs would be reduced in due course.

[bobsworth] 10/1/2014 20:54

Thanks for the feedback on prices everyone which sounds encouraging.

Wow 5% of world production!

Surprised at cost of production at $20/$25 per kilo! Thought the average was $15/$20 per kilo. Is that because they are still fine tuning extraction to prevent residue build up in the towers which they have a solution for?

Sorry to ask more!

[bocker01] 10/1/2014 20:47

As per the company: "As requested by the State of Montana, and following a review by the Company's retained consultants, the meeting will discuss the engineering design on the water depot and the letters of intent for the water usage." This seems fairly straighforward.

As Superg1 comments, the meeting cannot end the application which would go to a hearing, but it can move it to preliminary determination to grant. So for IOf it is a "can win", "cannot lose" situation. Not the best time to be short. Of course, by then the presentations will have put iodine firmly to the fore with the strong possibility of some fairly exciting news - pre water meeting.

[gadolinium] 10/1/2014 20:43

Engelo post 14501,
Thanks for the interesting link to Indian iodine imports. The last ten 99.5% min purity deliveries commanded $48.14/kg. The single prilled delivery in December (21st) commanded a small premium $58.84/kg (EDIT $50.84 typo!). Although I have often seen it reported that Japan's iodine sells at a discount, it is not apparent in the deliveries recorded. A useful site for following current bulk pricing.

I have taken one Indian rupee = 0.016 USD.

[monty panesar] 10/1/2014 20:28

As was mentioned by SQM over a month ago Iodine prices expected to be $45/kg this quarter. Although within 48hrs of that announcement Sirocco stopped production which would have been 5% of world production.

[meadow2] 10/1/2014 19:36

Bobsworth - Latest thoughts seem to be that Iodine selling prices are stable at $45/$50 per kilo, with the possibility of a gradual increase over the course of the year. Iofina's latest costs of production were, I think, $20/$25 per kilo, the lower end of the industry. Plenty of room for reducing this average and becoming the company to beat in the market place.