Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[cockneyrebel] 07/6/2013 17:48

Well done R&M - I bet there's not many else coming forward with one :-)

I remember Danka too vaguely.

CR

[noli] 07/6/2013 17:42

maca, the water that gets in, i am talking about thousands/millions of years ago not now.

Basically its all about seaweed/kelp/evaporation, where the evaporite forms when marine water becomes restricted to an inland sea, bay, or a lagoon and undergoes a high degree of evaporation without additional replenishment of fresh seawater. Thats why different areas have different concentrations of ppm, so lower areas water may have got in, in history which has diluted, hence differing ppms all over the US. In some area none exist as their was no sea, bay, lagoon that formed.

[superg1] 07/6/2013 17:41

Maca

Bpd/7000 x ppm = kg per day for 90% yields.

On downtime io1 has run for 98% pf the time since last August. The plants have dual everything so production can be switched over if there is an issue anywhere. I doubt io2 will achieve that high due to that freak snowstorm on start up.

They are bound to have teething problems for new tech, but yields up to 98% and io1 running for that amount of time, is a fair old start rate, don't you think

Given that they quoted up to 98% yields. Low mid 90's seems likely, so that wipes out some of any potential down time using my calculation method anyway.

Even the 200ppm you quote comes out at 300mt. But I wouldn't bother thinking that low for the OK plants.

[randolph and mortimer] 07/6/2013 17:37

CR

Well I do remember DANKA hitting eight quid odd, before, er, going to 10p. I think they had a good couple of years and made a profit.

Then there was..

I'll have to come back to you on that.

[cockneyrebel] 07/6/2013 17:33

Anyone care to name me an American based co that has listed on AIM and been a success?

In success I mean got to making a proper profit, not EBITDA...XYZ and paid a divi.

Having been an investor professionally for nearly 15 years now I'm struggling to remember on that never ended in tears. That's leaving aside the disastrous other countries like China.

Has anyone ever wondered why a company based in the US, land of the free, home of the brave, where free enterprise, entrepreneurship thrives, where capital for good business ideas is easily raised, has decided to list on AIM?

Wouldn't be the very easy way a co can list on AIM and the very lax corporate governance compared to other markets would it?

IOF has a £300m market cap and the sales of a decent grocery store so I'm sure you've asked yourself that question.

CR

[noli] 07/6/2013 17:26

Thanks che7win, it was 1560 rather than what i put 1463.

We dont need cover ppm really, we know its up to 2000ppm but what we dont know is how many they have, iof have done all the hard work with the samples over the years, iof have a map of all the samples taken so they know exactly where the plants will go and in which counties and which order. The only thing iof will change imho is the new wells coming on line, some of these might just change iof's mind on placement if the ppm is high, like io#3.

Some areas their is more red tape than others, like california where io#1 was origanally before iof moved it to texas.

[maca1212] 07/6/2013 17:13

che7win,

Absolutely, but to be fair it also continues:

"Strata with the highest iodine content in the area (Mississippian limestones) have low permeabilities, and thus would yield only small amounts of brine. On the other hand, the lower Morrow sandstones (Lower Pennsylvanian) have a relatively high permeability and are capable of yielding large quantities of brine that average 300-350 ppm iodine."

Given that that (300-350ppm) is the figure that recurs in a lot of the literature and in descriptions of preceding producers focused on iodine extraction, that is currently my 'high on the happy side' assumption of the ppms that iof are likely to get, from the company's own releases this is however significantly higher than the figure that they have been releasing.

Noli - 1560 to 1580 is the highest that I have seen quoted, but there is a logic in the source quoted that I have not seen advanced elsewhere as to why the concentrations are higher, and why this (unfortunately) means that they are more likely to be limited in volume.

The main counter argument to this is that the scaled up fracking that has recently been started may indeed throw up some previously undiscovered structures that break the mould - unfortunately while those structures may yield high concentrations if there is a correlated drop in the flow (because less water, as you pointed out can get in) that will complicate the issue.

If the business model was predicated on average ppm rates above 300 (or probably indeed above 200 ppm, which in my calculations for a 30k bpd plant gives a likely annual production ceiling (at 100% extraction efficiency) of circa 250mt per plant assuming an up time of 95% and a 365 day working schedule. I would have serious doubts as to its achieve-ability.

Of course my abacus could be broken, so any assistance with the math would be greatly appreciated.

M

[madchick] 07/6/2013 17:02

Not disagreeing superg, but just want to point out that they did say "a number reaching up to 2000" which suggests more than one. Obviously, if they are too small in terms of BPD, it's useless! And that was what they'd already found 3 years ago. I must be feeling optimistic because it's a Friday :-)

[n3tleylucas] 07/6/2013 17:00

"I think it would be a good thing - would create greater stability,"

Not true, but it would hopefully stop them breaking market rules.

[superg1] 07/6/2013 16:54

On ppm's

For very high ppm's they will be on low bpd. For good big plant sites I'd say there are a decent number of wells between 250ppm and 500ppm that would serve the roll out this year and next, if they all go into OK.

It's a case of watching how this miss play unfolds. The number of high ppm wells could multiply quickly.

Pods imo will go on the high ppm/low bpd sites.

Iof found one of 2000ppm somewhere, but probably very low bpd.

[madchick] 07/6/2013 16:49

From 14th April 2010 RNS
In the US alone Iofina has already identified several hundred operations that have tested over 50 ppm of iodine, with a number reaching up to 2000 ppm of iodine.

The above is for maca just as an FYI.

I did a bit of research (not much, about three companies only!) to try and work out what the effect would be for SXX if it went over to the main market. Generally the share price seemed to dip just after a company went to the main market and then went back up after that (if I recall correctly, maybe it diped just before, rose just after, went back down and then back up). I also noticed a lot of institutional buying (RNS after RNS) in companies moving to the main market, which has already been suggested here. There were also quite a lot of sells and someone did give an explanation but I can't remember it now - maybe some are then overweight in the particular indice if already invested and need to shuffle funds? There was some technical reason for the selling (which presumably caused the dip), but this is usually outweighed by the subsequnent additional buying. I guess it all levels out in the end!

I think it would be a good thing - would create greater stability, although we don't really suffer too much volatility. I suspect that may change next year!

[che7win] 07/6/2013 16:46

maca1212,
nice link - it includes the following (note the top limit) which concurs with what I've read:

Iodine is present in concentrations ranging from less than 100 ppm (parts per million) to as much as 1,560 ppm in brines in various Paleozoic strata in the subsurface of northwestern Oklahoma; these concentrations are exceptionally high, and are well above those of any other known brines in the world.

[superg1] 07/6/2013 16:46

Beer

Io3 and 4 commissioned may be market sensitive, but I'm not sure them being built is.

They gave that near term timeline for the start of the build of io3 and as I say there is nothing apparent that suggests it's not the case.

They advertised a job recently which covers the supervising of the build of 3 more plants this year. That caused confusion for some, so I asked. The 3 more this year excludes io3. In other words the successful applicant won't be over-seeing the io3 build.

[mechanical trader] 07/6/2013 16:38

Good week but all this huffty puffty
stuff with the CR thread has dampened things.

Keep well away and lets move forward.

[noli] 07/6/2013 16:35

maca you have to look at the old geology to find higher ppm, 1463 is in some i have come accross, i dont have a link to hand. PPM's arnt really published, trust me on that one i and others have looked for many months.

Thats where all the iof samples come in, iodine is not all over OK, there is a particular area, i wont post it for obvious reasons. An example is that one area very close has nothing and above that area are high ppm.

To find what you are looking for you need to look into the geology of the formations and make up of the formations, like limestone, layers of gypsum and anhydrite. If fresh water gets in then the ppm is low.

[diggulden] 07/6/2013 16:28

Market sensitive info beercap, won't be released apart from RNS.

[engelo] 07/6/2013 16:27

warrensearle: that's correct.

[beercapafn] 07/6/2013 16:27

Superg. Any chance of just asking iof, as our spokesperson what is the current proggres of 3 and 4. Simples..

[engelo] 07/6/2013 16:26

maca1212: thanks for links. Good luck with your decision making, but imvho don't hang around too long :-)

[maca1212] 07/6/2013 16:18

This is the best (and most compact) description/characterization of brine iodine content that I've been able to find so far for the target brines in the anadarko basin.

hxxp://www.onemine.org/search/summary.cfm/Iodine-Geology-And-Extraction-In-Northwestern-Oklahoma?d=80918872282CCC2D45F3B685211D705DB0708B02E184E7C204F32D8C22751468205206&fullText=shale&start=90

If anyone has anything more recent/pertinent please supply the reference.

AFAIK concentrations higher than 350ppm are rare and limited in volume, how limited is however, anyone's guess.

The highest figure I've seen quoted in the company's 'production' RNS stream is 250ppm although there have been occasional hints of much higher samples, is anyone in possession of different/more informed information (or indeed have I missed something)?

M

[che7win] 07/6/2013 15:56

superg1 7 Jun'13 - 12:41 - 1173 of 1187 2 0

Good post, I forgot about the relocation of IO3 from Texas to OK.
Of course, as you say it makes total sense.

I don't know how many people realise that Oklahoma is THEE hotspot for PPM concentration of iodine in brines.
I have read an article from 1978 where it stated PPM's of over 1600.
From my point of view, those concentrations must be a a very small geographical location.

I think it makes sense to put all build into those hotspots until we have everything covered

As you say, compare that to other locations like Texas at 100 PPM and there is no contest.

Texas will be profitable, but the high margins are in Oklahoma, I'm just not sure how many plants we can put there?

In order to keep our rights to the iodine leases, lets get the portable plants into all our other ~100 location and produce limited quantities so that we have all leases secured.

[warrensearle] 07/6/2013 15:53

Dig seem to remember them saying they would RNS on commissioning of the plant rather than construction but yes the single most important thing is that we are on track with what is a very aggressive roll out plan for the second half of the year

[diggulden] 07/6/2013 15:51

Cheers engelo.

[captain_kurt] 07/6/2013 15:46

Showing alot of strength..good inter-day turnaround