Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[n3tleylucas] 22/5/2014 00:09

Listen te this mate...

[n3tleylucas] 21/5/2014 23:57

I am a man who has less hassle than Arron my friend... and Graham knows me, so? I'm 49, come for me big man,,, you might even enjoy what I'll do to you.

[sefton1] 21/5/2014 23:50

You can't look down on anyone from your position in the gutter Nitly. Better watch out or I may step on you when I cross the road

[n3tleylucas] 21/5/2014 23:42

I am a man who looks down on you... how will you ever make that better?



eh?

[n3tleylucas] 21/5/2014 19:44

'For the sake of transparency, the Board will report regularly on iodine production rates'

He didn't say monthly. (just as well eh?)





Great song Arron...

[bocker01] 21/5/2014 18:15

I would imagine water news will be sometime in August with most likely three production updates prior. May's production, June's production and July's production. Each one hopefully significantly better than the last. If the general consensus is to be believed iodine prices will gently firm up over the same period. Water was seen as desperately needed a few months ago but by July the company ought to be back to being seen as an iodine play.

[superg1] 21/5/2014 16:17

Just a note re SQM and iodine price comments. As they go for long term contract rates as mentioned in their last conference call, the price for them doesn't move.

Hopefully Ben Isaacson will be a bit more clued into their BS answers this time around.

[bogg1e] 21/5/2014 15:12

Thanks chaps.

[orslega] 21/5/2014 15:01

but with an element of independence....

"The DNRC Hearings Unit is an independent unit of the Water Rights Bureau staffed by the Hearing Examiners and administrative support, primarily responsible for conducting and presiding over water right contested-case and other administrative hearings.

The Hearing Examiners are responsible for conducting a fair and impartial hearing in accordance with applicable laws, rules and procedures and for preparing and issuing recommended proposed written or final decisions that include Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and an Order based on the case record and certain other legally accessible materials. Hearing Examiners may conduct hearings on contested beneficial water right permit or change authorization applications, Statements of Opinion recommending denial of an application, modification or revocation of permits to appropriate water, designation of controlled groundwater areas, rulemaking and closure of drainage basins to further appropriations"

imo because of the size of the application it has become political..Iofina have stated that they have dealt with all concerns raised by the DNRC....we'll see but would not be surprised to see hearing date move...

[bogg1e] 21/5/2014 14:13

naphar thanks. Ok so this is all still within the DNRC. The fact that the onus is on IOF to prove their case is not entirely encouraging, nor that a decision can take a further 90 days. Thanks anyway. So its all down to the iodine again to lift the share price

[naphar] 21/5/2014 13:58

From DNRC website:-

"If it is determined that one or more criteria have not been proven and the DNRC is unable to modify the application, the DNRC will prepare a draft preliminary determination to deny. The applicant will have 15 days to contact the DNRC in order to schedule a meeting and offer additional information as to why the application should be granted. If the information provided is adequate, DNRC will create the preliminary determination to grant the application and the application will move to public notice as discussed above. If the information is not deemed adequate, a preliminary determination to deny will stand and the application will move to our Hearings Unit and a show cause hearing will be held if the applicant does not withdraw the application."

"A show-cause hearing is initiated if the DNRC proposes to deny an application or grant an application with modifications. The hearing will be held within 45 days of issuance of the preliminary determination. This hearing allows the applicant to provide additional information showing why the DNRC erred in its preliminary determination. The burden of proof will be on the applicant. The Hearing Examiner's Final Order will be issued within 90 days of the hearing or 90 days of the close of the record, whichever is later."

So the hearing is heard by a Hearing Examiner, not a judge. That's how I read it.

We can later appeal in court if still not successful.

Edit: Quotes are from this FAQ

[bogg1e] 21/5/2014 13:58

OK, thanks. Is it possible to get clarification on this? I can write an email to them, has anyone tried this?

[naphar] 21/5/2014 13:53

I could be wrong, but I am not sure it does, no.

[bogg1e] 21/5/2014 13:49

It involves a judge doesn't it? And judges precide in courts, otherwise what sort of judge is he?

[naphar] 21/5/2014 13:43

Bogg1e

Who says It Is a court hearing? My understanding is the hearing is with a separate section of the DNRC that has not been involved to date.

[bogg1e] 21/5/2014 12:51

Engelo, the hearing is not a dnrc matter as such because the decision for the application has been passed upward in the legal hierarchy, ie the scheduled hearing is in a court with a preciding judge and I don't see how the DNRC can give a scheduled hearing date without first getting the date from the court itself, therefore if the court has booked june 3rd at 12:00 AM for the hearing then it must be reliable. Now, if the court, for one reason or another, has to reschedule the hearing then fair enough, i was recently on jury service and cases were rescheduled, so who knows. Also, there could be last minute legal discussions between the attornies/legal counsel and the judge, which may mean a decision is reached without the need for a trial (the judge may decide that the info available to him makes a decision so obvious that to take the trial further is either a waste of court time or money and "advise" the dnrc or IOF to concede to the other).

[orslega] 21/5/2014 11:53

SQM first quarter results

hxxp://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140520-916774.html

[madchick] 21/5/2014 11:51

SQM Q1 2014


On iodine:
"Prices of our major business lines declined
compared to the first quarter of 2013. As expected, at the end of 2013 and during the first quarter of 2014, iodine prices fell impacting our results. However, we have been able to increase efficiencies and reduce costs company-wide within this price environment. Our gross profit slightly increased when comparing the first quarter of 2014 to the third and fourth quarters of 2013."

Iodine and Derivatives

Revenues from sales of Iodine and Derivatives for the three months ended March 31, 2014 totaled US$91.2 million, a decrease of 38.3% with respect to the US$147.9 million reported for the three months ended March 31, 2013.

Demand continues to grow in the iodine market led by X-ray contrast media, LCD, and consumption related to pharmaceuticals. Volumes were slightly up when compared to the fourth quarter of 2013.

The expected decline in revenues was a result of lower prices during the first quarter of 2014. We saw average prices for SQM fall approximately 11% when compared to the fourth quarter of 2013. It is expected that these lower prices will remain throughout 2014.

Gross margin for the Iodine and Derivatives segment accounted for approximately 25% of SQM's consolidated gross margin in the first three months of 2014.

[engelo] 21/5/2014 11:50

boggle: because when it comes to delaying tactics the DNRC are world class ;-)

[bogg1e] 21/5/2014 11:26

cyber, SG, all we can do is go with the info from the Montana water authorities:

hxxp://www.dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_rts/appro_info/applications/application_status.asp?id=30066181

It states "Hearing scheduled for" june 3rd. Why not take it at face value?

[freshvoicem] 21/5/2014 11:08

Looking at history the results of a hearing sometimes do not come out for months when it's a significant development, so don't get too excited yet.

[superg1] 21/5/2014 10:52

Bog

That's a box filler by the water bureau, just a prelim date to show the hearing has been requested, I doubt very much that it will be the actual hearing date.

SQM results look pretty poor overall. They have some considerable debt too

Comparing that with the full annual report cut-off grades etc etc they really don't look set to take any more low blows.

Corporation tax is already set to rise.
The FUT loophole has been closed. Power costs are soaring.
That nonchalant looking 150 litres per second rule that is pending really does look like a kidney punch for SQM.

That excludes the fraud case against SQM bosses and others connected with them. Reports on that appear daily just search 'julio ponce lerou'


This is well worth a read re water from 12th May (link below). I go on about the 150 rule and it gets a mention at the end of the report. The media have little interest in it simply because the big miners are and have been going that way anyway. It is big news in relation to iodine production.

However with SQM and their current circs it does look like it will be a very painful ruling. They had planned for a believed $250m spend, but that was on the highs and surging revenues. Moving to seawater will hit their margins hard, and affect other producers too.

Keep an eye out for the 150 ruling, the market will take a while to spot it if passed. The SQM analysts would take months to spot it.

[captain_kurt] 21/5/2014 10:48

It's provisional. Not confirmed yet. I suspect it's later