Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[n3tleylucas] 09/6/2013 15:55

One from me too! He's the best poster on here, by quite some margin.

[mr_bluesky] 09/6/2013 15:54

N3tleyLucas:

LOL!

Its got 9 thumbs up for far ;)

Mr Bluesky

[n3tleylucas] 09/6/2013 15:47

Agree or not, that is one mighty post from SCRUTABLE. My weekend fix of SCRUT is now coursing through my mind. Phenomenal.

[mr_bluesky] 09/6/2013 15:09

SCRUTABLE.

I have just voted thumbs up for that post and I hope the author of this thread does not moderate it.

Mr Bluesky

[scrutable] 09/6/2013 15:03

This is looking more and more like a dog fight over the plastic bone thrown in by CR. I will make one entry to a reasoned debate and then exit. I abhor repetition and argument

I don't accept CR's bona fides. His self proclaimed motives are just not plausible. He puts himself out as a philanthropist wishing to save us all from the folly of our own delusion.

He creates a scenario which has plausibility only to those investors perenialy lurking around looking for tips and have no knowledge of any particular company, particularly this one.. He has come to the wrong thread to drum up fear
among the ignorant. It's such an old game "Le Corbeau et le Renard" from La Fontaine. So many Crows will open their beaks when that old Fox stimulates them and let the precious asset they hold, the shares, return to the market where they found them.

If CR were to have any hope of convincing us that this was just another of the possibly 90% (?) of companies destined to fail on AIM, or the 5% (?) which are fraudulent he would show us:

1) That the Board's figures for $10-15/kg for Opex and $60/kg for achieved sales were false, and that a gross margin is NOT currently being achieved of at least $25-35/kg through extraction alone nor that value is being further added by the chemical company at around $10/kg'

2) that these figures are NOT at least double those reported by SQM or Toyota or other Chilean or Japanese competitors

3)that the production results achieved by the original test unit IO#1 did NOT achieve the declared rate of 50-100mTpa from start up last August

3)that the subsequent scale up with IO#2 did NOT quickly double that figure, and with continuous upgrades reach 250mTpa and subsequently a credibly forecast of 300+mTpa

4)that the company does NOT have the system engineering skills to introduce automation of the innovative process created by Dr Khalev and that no such progress has been made despite the facts being made public in presentations to institutional and private investors on several occasions - nor that the titanium design has been successfully replaced by one of lower cost, faster to build, and of larger capacity built from fibre glass

5) that the next (larger) extraction plant IO#3 planned for roll out is NOT reliably scheduled for construction to begin this month with IO#4 not later than July and that neither will be commissioned and be producing at a higher rate than the first two experimental plants - nor that plants IO#5 and 6 will be delivered and commissioned this year despite repeated assurances that manufacture is proceeding according to plan; and that it is fanciful to rely on an exit rate for total production at the end of 2013 of more than 1000mTpa and that it is stupid for investors to hope for substantial out performance or to believe the directors who state that these figures are very conservative.

6) that the Board is telling lies when claiming that it already in possession of more than 100 contracts with Gas drilling companies entitling IOF exclusively to extract the iodine contained and that the waste brines involved are those which by comparative selection from more than 1000 samples contain the highest ppm in the USA.

CR is not preaching sedition to the naive and should up his game by equaling our own numeracy, and try to rubbish our calculations with real numbers. It is utterly unconvincing, and belittling several hundred highly intelligent and qualified contributors to this board to attempt to overturn their professional judgement with the argument "most US corporations listing on AIM are untrustworthy or incompetent. Therefore it must follow that IOFINA are as well, and that we have all been duped.

CR's criticisms of Iofina as an investment are based neither on published knowledge nor on quoted scientific or engineering facts, nor on past share price performance. It can only be concluded that he is trying to deceive investors by hinting at unspecified shortfalls in production or other management targets with the sole intention of inspiring fear and destroying confidence to provoke premature sales by existing holders for the benefit of short sellers, with himself possibly included

[madchick] 09/6/2013 15:00

Thanks for the reply - the wombats comment made me laugh!

I was interested to see what you were picking up mostly when you looked at the two sets of BoDs - a major skill in research is knowing what to focus on and what information is the most relevant and it's so easy to miss or to focus on the wrong thing (thinking it's relevant but it isn't) - I usually just look at BoDs and think "yeah, they look OK!" but also wonder if I should do more than that (time permitting as ever!) or if there is a better way of assessing!

[monty panesar] 09/6/2013 12:54

I imagine Io1 visually looks more impressive than Io2 but we know Io2 is far more productive.

[n3tleylucas] 09/6/2013 12:23

Welcome to the thread Mr_BlueSky. An all too obvious tune.

[mr_bluesky] 09/6/2013 11:21

I understand!

[superg1] 09/6/2013 11:02

EW no offence intended re moderate, just trying to keep the BB clean.

[mr_bluesky] 09/6/2013 10:48

I bought IOF in late march 2011 on certificated shares mainly because of the Japanese nuclear melt down and they were tipped.

Believe it or not.....It doesn't bother me if you do or don't.

I have made plenty of comments on my other threads on other sites about IOF and I have mentioned them briefly on my BULLFLAGS & BOTTOMS thread on this site.

Mr Bluesky

[mr_bluesky] 09/6/2013 10:25

superg1:


I am a holder here and have been for some time and quite happy to hold on much longer as I have always seen the potential here.

GLA

Mr Bluesky

[superg1] 09/6/2013 10:23

Rug

If you are monitoring image updates, io3 will probably be not too far from io2.

[superg1] 09/6/2013 10:15

No idea Mad on assessing what someone has in their experience list. If one employed solely from a CV list then you could end up with some right wombats in your company.

CV's are just full of BS.

It looks like an exciting industry and QMC look like they could become a lot bigger.

The same can be said of Nano.

Nano is covered here, but no-one has talked about QMC too much. I've already fired off an email to someone that may have some clue.

The reason being that nano has an MC of $450m and QMC $11m.

I'm not saying Nano is over-priced, but the early read and clear future growth for cadmium free nano dots seems to suggest QMC is a bargain.

However it's case of getting all the facts together and I'm nowhere near on that one yet. They could need huge dilution, funds etc etc. I haven't looked.

On the scientific side, in terms of experience on the team, QMC do look way ahead. However it's just on paper.

[n3tleylucas] 09/6/2013 09:53

Just a reminder, there is a white list, that non-subscribers can use to post direct links & photos ... just go here, make your suggestions, and as long as ADVFN don't think it'll be used to spam, they'll add it;

[rugrat2] 09/6/2013 09:39

The picture with the pond is on the front cover of the presentation, along with another view of the reception area. Updating of images seems to be rather random to me - some change in quick succession, others are in place for 2-3 years. I keep hoping that with all the Miss Lime activity that they will update the IO2 area - there are plenty of recent satellite images available for the area.

[the librarian] 09/6/2013 09:38

I did notice your other one Rugrat, keep up the great work.... I like looking at pictures :-)

[n3tleylucas] 09/6/2013 09:32

I think tiny pic is on the white list, so 'blacks' can use it.

Good work ruggers!

[superg1] 09/6/2013 09:30

Rug there is a picture somewhere re that pond in front of it, so that is io1.

How often to google update their maps?

[n3tleylucas] 09/6/2013 09:30

Nice oddity johncsimpson, could have been more long-winded, but good effort nonetheless lol ... keep up the erm, work.

[rugrat2] 09/6/2013 09:28

That's a surprise - I thought ADVFN had stopped non-blues from posting images directly?

[rugrat2] 09/6/2013 09:25

Since confirming that IO#1 is at the Polley swd in Johnson County, Texas courtesy of a new GoogleEarth image, something else has dawned on me. What I had thought was a "library" image of an SWD plant in North Dakota/Montana on page 16 of the recent presentation which refers to the Atlantis Water Project, is in fact the Polley site. The photograph is taken from the top of the blow out tower of the IO#1plant. I have scanned it and added it to the image that was posted on Friday: