Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 11/6/2013 15:16

Bob

Assuming maca is genuine, (for now he seems to be). I like the approach of looking for the faults, that's always the best way, but isn't welcome on most BB's.

I wasn't welcome with my challenge on wordings in an rns and facts about timelines, but a few months on and what I said is in play. Those facts were available but very few would listen.

I could do the same now on another share, but hey ho it's unwelcome and you just end up with a load of grief. Then those nutters appear with on the back of it saying, 'it's gonna crash' and all that rubbish. Multi signs-on's just registered etc etc etc.

There is another point raised about the Miss Play by Maca. The miss play is one of the highest produced water plays in the US and it's that play that is of great interest to me re IOF.

Low Bpd on brine doesn't always equate to high ppm or high bpd meaning low ppm.

In fact I could name the best play in Texas which is higher than the 250 mentioned in many places and list all companies on the hot area.

[bobsworth] 11/6/2013 14:23

superg1
Thanks for the clarification on the carbon method and confirming maca1212 is no "NO guru" on Iofina's WET® IOsorb™ methodology.

[smilingmickey] 11/6/2013 12:50

SG,

Exactly as per my 1521

"Coming out of the bushes!!!"

[maca1212] 11/6/2013 12:46

Hmm,

Can't find any specifics on the blockage, I have to say the lawyer's blog entry looked to me like a 'touting for business' entry.

Its intent is of course to attract rights owners to engage with the lawyer, one could of course come up with a number of conspiracy theories - has the lawyer negotiated a deal with iochem on behalf of a client? Have they been engaged by iochem? Have they possibly been engaged by iofina and are using iochem as a 'smokescreen'?

Every market analysis I have read on iodine paints a picture of a market in low to medium growth and in a stable supply / demand situation, where existing sources have been both identified and are in mainstream production.

You have an 800lb gorilla (SQM) and a 600lb gorilla (Toyota) both of whom have plans in place and money ready to expand their share. In the case of the 600 lb gorilla they are pursuing a global strategy of vertical integration to assist a push into pharmaceuticals.

Then there are a number of smaller players who may or may not be on the breadline. They may fold like a house of cards or they may fight very hard to stay in business.

Additionally iodine reclamation from LCDs etc. is on the up.

Then you have iofina, unfortunately to me as a layman the downstream process declared in their patents granted so far looks remarkably like those previously in the field - using adsoption into either a resin media or activated carbon. It is the electrolytic/physical front end (WET) process that appears to be truly innovative.

While the latter (charcoal) is environmentally friendly and quite innovative (vs a vs resin which raises some suspicion) the cost of activated carbon is massively on the up.

If activated carbon is indeed the adsorption mechanism this is likely to impact iof's future production costs. I have no idea how efficient the reclamation process is but I would presume that the carbon beds have a finite number of cycles before they will need to be regenerated.

Don't get me wrong, (LOL I am NO guru and others should ALWAYS follow their own research/beliefs) it is still a very interesting play and I will be watching with interest but there are currently just a few too many 'global' variables and technology unknowns in it for me at the moment, recent experience with burnt fingers has perhaps made me too cautious.

Anyway as I said before good luck to all who hold.

M

[superg1] 11/6/2013 12:41

I'm wondering if that video is the start of a bit of PR running up to the 19th.

I heard CF was to appear saying something in a media area, far more visual, and relevant for the financial sector. Hence my maisie dog , try harder post.

[superg1] 11/6/2013 12:10

SM

(we) run the risk of getting taken out at too low a price.

No we don't

Contract values form part of any valuation process. IOF have 100 sites for 19000mt PA linked in.

But there again you didn't state what you think a low price is. Once that patent arrives it's all nailed on.

By the time anyone interested picks up the phone iof will be past a 1500mt annualised rate anyway with a fast track plan to double it.

Anyone got that Chris fay link it's not on the BB

[superg1] 11/6/2013 11:55

On iochem, they are blocked for new sites, so they can't expand. They are also at their maximum allowed output and are struggling to keep it there due to decades of being on the same brine.

I hear their pressures are dropping, so they have to pump the waste brine back into the same play which then dilutes the ppm's.

Just like Japan who after 50 years of brine extraction are in decline, iochem and co legislation blocked onto their existing sites are facing the same problems.

That's why IOF tech is so lucrative with it's emission free capabiilty v deadly mustard gas.

[smilingmickey] 11/6/2013 11:44

SG,
We are singing from the same hymn sheet!

My main point was that IOF may be about to go "public." IHMO at some point they need to do this to move the share price upwards, otherwise they (we) run the risk of getting taken out at too low a price.

We are coming up to the AGM, where we will have news about IO2 production and completion of IO3 (due July?) water permits and (maybe) leases.

[maca1212] 11/6/2013 11:18

Superg,

Thanks, a recent blog post from a lawyer's website indicates that iochem are 'paying good money' for iodine rich brine rights in western OK counties, so it would appear that things have moved on a bit from the $50 per acre bonus and $10 per acre figures referenced in the 1987 article. Unfortunately unable to track down a specific figure or indeed the relative value of $50/$10 dollars in 1987 vs the then cost per kilo of iodine.

hxxp://robertroblesattorney.wordpress.com/

Also it appears (same source) that brine rights (at least in OK) are separate from oil and gas rights and therefore have to be separately negotiated with the surface rights owner, but you will already know this.

Toyota claim 2000Mt production in 2012 with a ramp up to 4-6K Mt to keep pace with demand in their new(-ish) chilean venture - expanding their global market share from 7% to 14%, haven't got a clue as to their cost of production or marginal cost of expanded volume unfortunately, (see page 24 in the below);

hxxp://www.toyota-tsusho.com/english/ir/report/annual/uploadfiles/TTC_E_AR2012_fin.pdf

However they are pursuing a vertical integration strategy where they are looking to takeover/merge with contrast media manufacturers. It would appear to me that they have made their strategic investment in the supply side but retain some capacity in the US (and are probably with their iochem venture, currently the largest US producer with circa 1200Mt output?). Pity about the iochem website, which is pants.

This together with iofina's production ramp up could have dire consequences for the future iodine cost per KG surely?

Game strategy on the input side and and commercial market development on the output side a difficult a little too difficult to gauge at the moment IMHO, so I think for the moment I shall remain on the sidelines and watch what unfolds.

That's probably all from me for a while, thanks for all the info and good luck to all LTH.

M

[superg1] 11/6/2013 11:16

SM

That's why I sat they have multiple sites that will do 400mt and 500mt and more.

That's why all along on their website it says they have sites that will do 450mt plus.

They said it, so a few of us checked it out many months ago, by digging very deeply for data.

The tech is proven, we await delivery on the roll out. It's all about the Miss play.

All you need is bpd, ppm's and yield capabilty, we have them all. Oil companies quote brines capacities at SWD's and where they are going etc.

It's all there, and that's why once you have done the hard work, you know why they will be the best investment on the stock market.

[malachey] 11/6/2013 11:13

www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/stocktube/2043/iofina-says-newly-issued-convertible-bond-will-finance-roll-out-of-additional-plants--2043.html

[superg1] 11/6/2013 11:09

That post 1510 and Chris Fay has gone.

The poster was doing a few different one's relevant to each shares and clearly got wiped out by the ADVFN spam kit.

Does anyone have the link.

[smilingmickey] 11/6/2013 11:09

Thanks for the link Captain!

In the interview Chris Fay said that IOF have identified many more sites with high iodine content brine, and that IOF plan to build a minimum of 6-8 plants per year after 6 this year) going forward!

Coming out of the bushes!!!

[n3tleylucas] 11/6/2013 11:00

Oh please, who are you kidding? The challenge here is to get processed I made into product by IC and sold out of the door ... that takes time. When's the profit warning?

[superg1] 11/6/2013 10:59

Re my Sirocco email comment. You may note the Siroco share pricee has been on a down trend, and the president recently left. I'm sticking with my view that they will disappear as an iodine producer in Chile.

'We expect our unit operating costs to drop towards the industry average of around $30/kg. This leaves us a significant margin at current iodine prices. There is absolutely no indication that demand for iodine should materially drop in the medium term.'

'We are monitoring Iofina along with all other market participants. At this point, they are not a major producer. Obviously, if they (or any other entrant to the market) were to become a large Iodine producer this could affect the iodine market. We note that demand remains strong for iodine.'


Sirocco for the record are on about 1200mt, IOF should exit 2013 at a higher production rate than them with 6 plants and capex of $10m to $15m.

In fact Sirocco are spending $34m this year and hope to add 388mt, with $15m in Q1 2014 to add another 400mt but that's just the ball mill not full 2014 capex.


So $51m at least in a hope to add 800mt over 2 years, with opex at $38 per kg and a hope to get towards the lower $30's

IOF can do 800mt for $3m capex and opex of $10-$15 per kg.

You can invest in Sirocco if you wish, and some poor IOF blind investors over in Canada, probably are.

Take your pick.

800mt

$51m capex and $38 per kg opex, plans to get towards lower 30's

$3m capex $10 to $15 opex per kg

Put side by side, you can see why it's probably goodbye Sirocco. Perhaps the VP did realise IOF are a threat, did the math, and left.

[superg1] 11/6/2013 10:45

Writz

The Sirocco president in an email to me said they would like to get costs down towards $30 per kg like some of the major producers.


SQM will be one of the lowest cost producers. Historically they have been the lowest cost producer for many years, but dumped that claim in their last update, to 'one of the lowest'.

Other sectors they have have been hit, they need high iodine prices to maintain revenues. What their costs are mean nothing for now. They can't afford for iodine prices to drop, their share price is already tumbling. They have big capex needed to move to new resource area's as a couple are on their last legs. $650m capex I think they said

In the past they would have simply upped production to push newcomers or growth elsewhere aside.

This year they have added a warning in their year end report saying effectively they have to hold back due to other supply and new entrants.

That in no way reads as a position of strength.


The only general report we seem to get is this one. The paragraph below in that report says it all




Another thing is known about 2013: Supply and demand, at current prices, is balanced. A decrease in iodine prices would lower supply because most of those small capacity Chilean mines operate at breakeven within the current price structure. Even a small price decrease would remove some supply coming from small mines; a large decrease would probably shut them all down. This would immediately throw the market out of balance, and it would take time to see if the other larger mines would be in a position to supply that lost capacity. Since none of the larger mines seem to have extra iodine to sell, it would appear that no decrease in iodine price is likely unless production increases. And right now, production basically just covers purchases being made by iodine users.

[captain_kurt] 11/6/2013 10:29

11 June 2013



Watch the video. Telephone interview with Chris Fay

[freshvoice] 11/6/2013 10:20

I too would appreciate a link to new bb. I don't post often but am slowly accumulating and still learning more from super.

[diggulden] 11/6/2013 10:17

Worth watching that video link that was posted a couple of posts before this one. Confirmation from Chris Faye that plans are for 4 more plants (additional to IO1 & 2) by end of year, with a minimum of 6 - 8 a year moving forward.

[superg1] 11/6/2013 10:13

Maca

Sorry i missed the point on seawater.

The fact is the Atacama desert is 7000' up and 65km from the coast. Chile power costs have shot up with a failing infrastructure.

Most of their power is hydro related, but their worst drought for decades is killing water resources. You may note the gov action on Cosayach and more recently a huge fine for a gold mine that has been shut down, all water related.

They need water for power. With dwindling supplies, mines are turning to the sea. To get the water to mines, take a series of power hungry pumping stations.

For power they need water etc etc etc. So it's a bit of a vicious circle for which Chile quotes will take a decade to sort.

It's not about desalination but about the comparison of using groundwater on site as opposed to having to pump it 65km and 7000' up. The latter is naturally going to be a lot more expensive.

For SQM's full needs if they went that way, I saw somewhere that it would cost $250m in capex.

Sirocco the much smaller player would need to spend $50m. But then Chile has constant campaigners against all of the changes due to environmental issues. The courts have blocked many expansion projects. Plenty of evidence is on the web re that, with big companies pulling plans to enter Chile because of it.

I'll put a few links in.