Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[battery] 22/5/2014 14:42

Sqm are available on IG.

[woodpeckers] 22/5/2014 13:09

Good find captain k, sounds as though they are intending to focus on potash and give up on the iodine. :-)

[diggulden] 22/5/2014 13:09

I asked SpreadEx to set up SQM as an open market for me last year when the price was $35, then bottled it when it came to opening the short!

[1madmarky] 22/5/2014 13:00

SG joining the dark side eh...... Wish I had done last year. hey ho, live and learn.

[rhwillcol] 22/5/2014 12:10

I am becoming a big fan of the President of Chile, and am in favour of all her new laws!

[captain_kurt] 22/5/2014 12:04

Iofina gets a mention in this article



"London-listed Iofina, for instance, which extracts iodine from brine produced from onshore US oil and gas wells, achieved record output last year, although its volumes pale in comparison with those of the likes of SQM and Sirocco Mining."

[superg1] 22/5/2014 12:02

Just a P take awol, they took months to notice iodine prices had dropped and would affect SQM results. Hence pre results downgrades came and a mini crash in the SQM share price

Mush pain coming SQM's way over the next year or so I suggest.

[awolagain] 22/5/2014 11:57

Superg

This kind of major impact on all mining sectors will be noticed by the SQM analysts long before then...I would imagine the company are wondering about long term operations in that country...and the exit plan...who knows they may decide to up sticks and take iof at £5 a share as really good value!

Short term they need the price of iodine to move north, reduce the amount in the market is the quickest way to achieve that...but that involves big lay offs etc etc....which the markets will notice. They can't keep it under the radar for long.

[superg1] 22/5/2014 11:46

Lithium

SQM hope prices will hold. The key there is Australia at the moment who have joined the game but with higher costs, they are meeting the extra demand.

I don't think SQM analysts have spotted the Wyoming news. Interestingly it's being discussed on the Tesla forum page re Wyoming



I know of an ex US hedge fund manager who I know had clients in SQM, I have passed on the coming water law problem for them in detail. We have had comms re SQM in the past.

I'm hoping it bounces back towards $30 at which point I'll be joining the dark side re them.

[superg1] 22/5/2014 11:15

AWOL

I can only go on guesstimates from litre per second rates picked up from Algorta and SQM.

My guess is a 150 limit would mean around 2500mt production limits.

Cosayach are said to be on around 3,700 mt.

My guess is that they would dump production to get under the limit, it doesn't make sense to have the large capex and extra opex.

The levels SQM are at would mean they would have to go that way.

That ruling would end Sirocco's thoughts of big future plans. They were only looking at over 2000mt anyway but would need seawater after that (I have it in an email). Costs for them a couple of years back were $50 mill.

[superg1] 22/5/2014 11:03

AWOL 1MM

The beauty of it is that SQM investors and the market in general will be oblivious to he affect that such measures will have on businesses like SQM.

One analyst out SQM on equal weight recently and took away their target price. Those being bank analysts haven;t got the slightest clue the impact such a measure would have on SQM and it's just weeks away.

Take this Bloomberg report. They picked up on the comment in January re 150



One media interest issue is that the big mines are already doing it, but most mines that interest us, are not.

Their comments, the second paragraph of which sums up the impact.

'It's not known when the upper house of Congress would take up the water-mining measure. There was no immediate comment today on the bill from the mining lobby Consejo Minero.' (it's June)

'A 40 percent rise in production costs such as those that include sourcing water is threatening new project investments in copper and gold mines that exceed $100 billion, according to the Santiago-based Mining Council that represents mining companies.'

So they are saying those mines that use seawater have seen their costs including that rise by 40% and that it threatens over $100 bill worth of projects.

The media will catch on when they announce it in June. The impact it has on SQM will probably be missed. SQM analysts will probably pick up on it in about 2017 when they wonder why costs have rocketed.

[1madmarky] 22/5/2014 10:26

Yeah the 150 rule is pretty much manna from heaven for us. It will be interesting to see how far and how fast this is going to be actioned. At the end of the day, the law makers can't be completely stupid and bite off the hands that feed them,or could they? gonna be fun to watch.

[awolagain] 22/5/2014 09:45

This is really bad news for producers...it will have them scratching for a solution...of which there is none. Reduce production and output to drive the price up...? and play right into our hands.
We are the only winner with this news... ;-)

[superg1] 22/5/2014 09:31

:-)

It seems the 150 litre water rule is going to be announced earlier than I thought (next month).

It will have a big impact on SQM business going forward (and others)

It seems the president covered it yesterday and the report link is below.

SQM's biggest iodine mine in Neuve Victoria is listed as having 570 litres per second fresh water use.

"on the basis of proposals to be presented this June a presidential delegate decision adds to the intention of changing the laws on the use of water resources."

"We have appointed a presidential delegate who shall deliver in June a proposal for short, medium and long term," said the president in his annual address to Congress."





Going back to the original 150 litre comment in January 2014

"Chile's lower house members have submitted a draft bill aimed to make the use of desalinated water in mining processes mandatory, in an effort to deal with the decreasing supply of the vital element and provide a solution to the industry mounting power needs."

"In a press release (in Spanish) the lawmakers said the bill would force miners that consume over 150 liters of water per second to incorporate desalinated seawater into their operations."


As I recall from other research the 150 rule was said to kick in during 2016. That isn't enough time imo for most to complete EIA required tasks.

From another report the process was said to raise water costs for those involved to between 4 and 10 times current rates. other companies report pumping seawater accounts for 30% of their power costs. So the opex issue is material.

Iodine prices of $60 kg plus therefore (if that law is passed) seems nailed on on the next couple of years for Chile.

Imo it could out SQM in a very tight spot, they have shelved capex plans and as shown some mines are below cut-off grades for certain products.

[freshvoicem] 22/5/2014 09:11

Sefton
PLEASE just filter the idiot like most of us do.
Thanks

[sefton1] 22/5/2014 00:53

You just don't get it Nitly. I'm not your type cos I'm not inflatable so stop trying to solicit me

[sefton1] 22/5/2014 00:31

Oh well, if you keep posting then there is a statistical chance that someday you might come up with something that could even be vaguely intelligent

[n3tleylucas] 22/5/2014 00:26

You back down bud? Why?

Respect.

[n3tleylucas] 22/5/2014 00:21

You a top boy sefton1? I remember coal miners with that avatar? You a top boy Sefton mate? What team mate? Donny? Blades? Service? Tell me how big a man you are...

[n3tleylucas] 22/5/2014 00:16

It's good mate...

[sefton1] 22/5/2014 00:14

I'm not your 'mate' nor am I interested in your caca music