Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[che7win] 23/12/2014 09:56

TNCI - 20p in return for holding a couple of months.

TAIH - new investor just below 30% holding, maybe going to energise the stock - trading below book value and cash.

[superg1] 23/12/2014 09:22

SQM

They are in a battle at the moment re the continuation of leases for lithium and Potassium.

This is the area concerned.




I mention it due to the impact it could have on them.

A new step was taken in the arbitration cross-claims between CORFO and SQM, where the state agency requires the cancellation of the lease at the Salar de Atacama and seeks compensation of US $ 9 million.

The company reported its results for the third quarter, the process moved into a conciliation stage, after the previous report said it was in the test.

Sources familiar with the process leading state, say they have little chance that conciliation agreement is reached.

The Salar de Atacama operations are strategic for the company. According to their results to September, revenue related products from this location, representing 38.7% of total consolidated revenues of the company.

CORFO is a government organisation, so it's the government not wanting the leases to continue. My guess is they would want renewed leases, at a more favourable rate, to the highest bidder. The failure to pay the $9 million opened the door to cancel existing lease deals it seems.

The original deal was way before lithium was such a hot commodity.

[ansana] 23/12/2014 08:43

"how do SQM feel about IOF's repeated declaration that they aim to become the global leader in iodine?"Given our woes in 2014 it's probably given them a good laugh, 2015 is a whole new ball game though. We have hit our target the plants are producing, we have brine. SQM only have eyes for Coss and by that I don't mean they are fluttering their eye lashes at them. All helpful to IOF and allows us time to get the water permit, publish and begin implementing the growth plan.

[superg1] 23/12/2014 08:24

I forgot it was in Spanish so had struggled to find it. It refers specifically to SQM.

December 15th

Asked about the effectiveness of savings applied by SQM, Isaacson said "when I was four years ago in Chile, Ricardo Ramos, finance SQM, I noted that the cash cost was about US $ 100 per tonne, but today I consider that is about US $ 200. Any improvement they make today, will be above what they were four years ago. "

That tends to confirm why high cost mines were closed and more recently they actually state the lower iodine price is part of their strategic plan to recapture 30% of the market.

[woodpeckers] 23/12/2014 08:22

sandbag/SG, it does beg the question then of how do SQM feel about IOF's repeated declaration that they aim to become the global leader in iodine?

[superg1] 23/12/2014 08:15

Just to add to that (I'll try and find the report).

Ben Isaacson of Scotia bank who specialises in miners and covers SQM, said he thinks the cuts in costs don't reflect the true picture.

In mining terms he was talking of costs $100 per tonne 4 years ago but now estimates the costs are $200.

It's a general comment by him, but obviously he considers costs have gone up significantly for Chile miners in the last few years.

It's something we knew but nice to see the big analysts in the sector come to the same conclusion.

[woodpeckers] 22/12/2014 22:23

It's becoming more and more clear as the iodine story unfolds that Lance really has been aware of all that is has been going on in the wider market and has been wisely playing his cards close to his chest. Perhaps he was criticised too much for not being more open about the the company's prospects. Bearing in mind our past collaboration with SQM I wonder if there was a certain amount of 'collaboration' between the two companies?

[superg1] 22/12/2014 20:05

If IOF keep steady production going then chemical division competitors who are not vertically integrated will have to raise prices, so IOF will follow suit. If IOF do hit their goal of being one of the lowest costs out there, then it puts them in a very good position.

A good example is the Troy Corporation who announced price rises for their products when iodine prices went up.



I haven't seen them mention a price cut since the iodine price dropped.

IOF do a lot of niche specialised products. They will seek to gain the best returns on their produced iodine.

[magwich] 22/12/2014 19:10

If iodine prices were to go up, would IOF be able to increase the price of their derivatives? The reason I ask is I believe at the moment all Iodine produced by IOF is used in their derivative side so any increase in Iodine price wouldn't matter to IOF unless they produced more to sell on externally of the derivative side. Thx

[superg1] 22/12/2014 17:18

Carlisle (Culbertson) did a decent application, but he has not used facts in his objection.

Ames seems linked to 4 depots not including Culbertson. If Carlisle was that sharp he should have spotted the Ames depots potential fraudulent LOIs.

As we move towards the end of this month all potential objection points will be complete and it can be reviewed then.

[neddo] 22/12/2014 16:55

has all this info been given to iof , r do they already know about this guy ?

[che7win] 22/12/2014 16:54

Bogg1e,
It would make sense if he feels it would open up a can of worms for him and if I were IOF i would be steering him to that conclusion!

[bogg1e] 22/12/2014 16:20

SG much appreciated. I think today we have turned a corner in terms of share sentiment, even if we do have to wait to the end of february for an outcome on the water permit. This John Ames/ Culbertson chap has got to be careful how he proceeds with the objection especially if it draws attention to his own fraudulent behaviour. I would not be surprised if he drops the case.

[che7win] 22/12/2014 16:07

Suoerg,
My view is restricted too, but you can see the comment if you do this search (top item):

[superg1] 22/12/2014 16:00

Che

Post 28170 re the legal rights comment.

That info doesn't show on the indmin site due to restricted access. Were you able to view extra information?

[ansana] 22/12/2014 11:29

Culbertson Guy may withdraw if it's pointed out he has much to lose if he continues and his own operation comes under scrutiny. He may also think twice if he incurs costs.

[superg1] 22/12/2014 11:10

re this line

'The objection deemed valid may result in a contested case hearing before a DNRC Hearing Examiner whereby the objector must prove that the permit was preliminary granted in error.'

There are options that go on before a hearing where the applicant and objector can communicate with the objection being withdrawn or agreed conditions.

I can't see the Culbertson guy being willing to withdraw, but he will probably know it's a complete waste of time so may do so.

At any hearing his points are not only weak they are false to some extent, a matter which is easily proved.

If IOF are in talks re a JV, then as in the rns, the objection process has not interfered with that.

[woodpeckers] 22/12/2014 10:47

Good luck che. :)