Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[noujay] 06/7/2013 22:23

20p? You're a million.. This may be still a bit inflated even after the drops, but this has the makings of a great company with a compelling story. You won't see 20p however much you'd like to imagine you "smash bulls to pieces" under whichever is your nom de plume of the day!

[n3tleylucas] 06/7/2013 20:48

"and came up with share price 787"

That'll be missed by over 700p.

This is a 40p to 75p stock.

Might buy some at 20p.

[engelo] 06/7/2013 19:38

pcjoe(4815): Agree O&G a very likely/suitable source for new CEO. Re M&A Lance is still around and his expertise is still available :-)

While Lance has been largely responsible for building the co to the point of take off, he may not even in full health be the best person to take things forwards from here. It's just going to be too big for detailed involvement in every corner, which is one of Lance's strengths.

I feel that Lance has the bandwith to have worked all this out, and has made and timed his decisions taking the good of the company into account as well as looking after his own priorities. This can't have been easy, and hope it will work out the very best for him.

[rhwillcol] 06/7/2013 18:37

superg1: as always, many thanks for your excellent research.

[superg1] 06/7/2013 18:20

QFI

Having had a quick read it's obviously it's all about their fuel. Round one of fuel number 1 and tests, looks like it was a complete failure.

So now they are on fuel number 2 which has this line in the rns re that fuel

'The enhanced fuel is based on advanced formulation techniques and highly efficient additives.'

Thought he whole idea of the original fuel is that it had water additives, and that this was the trick that set it apart.

They do quote others using more expensive additives to achieve the same results, although other versions do coke up systems.

The new fuel has 'highly efficient additives'. So it seems the water based idea didn't work and now additives of some type are in play.

They also say-:

'We are delighted by the results of the recent tests on Marine MSAR(R)2 on an advanced 2-stroke engine'

Here is the rns with the details in-:




So basically MSAR didn't work so they produced MSAR2 with 'additives', the whole point of it was supposed to be reduced additives, so what are those additives that now make it work. Logic suggests with additives MSAR2 is more expensive.

But then MSAR2 is being trialed in an 'advanced' 2 stroke engine.

Does that then severely deplete the market sector, as only ships with the advanced engines could use it ???

But then it's still under trial with a plan to expand it to more than one ship.

Then there is this line-:

'is pleased to announce that the further tests on Marine MSAR(R)2 have been completed and successfully demonstrated the general efficacy and performance of the fuel as intended.'

They haven't exactly shouted about it.


Overall that rns above is a bit loose on details, and it seems to me with MSAR2 now has 'additives' and appears to need use with advanced 2 stroke engines.

It's a watch for me based on the info, there is too much fog around the move to MSAR2, additives and advanced engines.Is the fuel now more expensive due to additives, and the market sector shrunk due to the need for use in advanced engines only. The full test stage is also not yet complete it seems.

I appreciate many will know far more than me about it, but on first viewing, those are the points for me that stand out.

MSAR water diluted has now become MSAR2 with 'additives' and a move to advanced engines.

A few questions to be answered there, MSAR didn't work, so does MSAR2 work in standard engines. How far has the gap closed to other products now they do use additives.

[superg1] 06/7/2013 17:35

rh

That's why we were banging on about rns wording. They knew what they meant but no-one else did. I suspected it was to do with WAWS, as a couple of us had already pointed out the issue and suggested a re-think on depot locations in ND.

They were already aware.

Re a CEO, all the experience and skilled staff are more or less in place, it just now need a good conductor. A dynamic decision maker, would be a key imo.

[monty panesar] 06/7/2013 17:17

I imagine it will take a couple of months to find the right guy then it will probably be another 3 months to maybe work out any existing contract he might have.
With each division having its own CEO and Lance still working almost full time it is more important they get the right person than make a hasty appointment at this point.

[rhwillcol] 06/7/2013 17:16

Many thanks indeed for your excellent answers to the ND water permit question - and it is very encouraging that ND will still be progressed with. To be honest, I hadn't realised that.

[pcjoe] 06/7/2013 17:07

I take it thats wouldn`t Bobsw - I would reckon that theres a lot of top managerial talent in the O&G industry that would fit the Bill - Plenty of Iodine specialists in IOF already in place to help - If the new guy just substitutes Iodine for oil re his mindset, then he will be on the right track
IMO

If the CEO has a lot of experience in mergers, acquisitions & takeovers etc that might point a clue as to the companies nearish future - Likewise the inverse - But come to think of it wasn`t Lance`s experience based on M&A etc? - The BOD will likely be looking for a Lance clone........

[madchick] 06/7/2013 15:58

It made me laugh that the guy's name was Rivers and he liked to talk about water!

[bobsworth] 06/7/2013 15:58

Looking forward to the appointment of our new CEO which should settle investors.

With plenty of top staff expert in iodine extraction I would not be surprised if the board appoints someone with the knowledge and expertise of the oil/gas industry.

[noli] 06/7/2013 15:03

Thats right sg, waws have around 12 to 15 depots, other companies were selling water via the waws pipeline, hot and cold. It's a shame iof missed that one as it would have been an easy way to sell water without putting in pipes etc, waws could also sell the excess water to commercial operators. Other companies complained that it wasn't a fair deal and the senate passed the SB 2359 bill.

[superg1] 06/7/2013 14:37

RW

As PcJoe says, Plan A was in place but if you look up the Western area water supply (WAWS) in ND. They added in rules that said no-one could put terminals within 10 miles of any of theirs.

'The state Senate passed SB 2359 during the legislative session, which essentially makes it illegal for private businesses to compete with the state-funded WAWS water depots in western North Dakota. The legislation says that after July 1, 2013, private businesses cannot sell water for industrial purposes within a 10-mile radius of any of the 12 state-approved water depots unless the firms already have facilities and state water permits in place'

A couple of us were in comms with IOF (early April) providing the details when it came up.

I think you will find IOF will avoid the 'water wars' area, asd there are other hot frack area's with far less competition, and that is what the review of the ND water supply is all about.

[pcjoe] 06/7/2013 13:47

Rhwillcol - Iofina are seeking to go off piste in North Dakota - A hell of a lot of competition in the current hot spots including new State sponsored water supply lines which exclude privately owned new operators setting up in their vicinity - Iofina are apparently targetting the likely coming new hot spots in ND away from the crowd & develop facillities in anticipation - Much the same strategy for Montana where IOF will apparently be very well positioned for current demand but also, & crucially, for when & if new O&G demand appears - Very quick off the mark & ambitious strategy in Montana - Hopefully it will pay off big time

[pcjoe] 06/7/2013 13:33

Of course Semper - forgive me that that slip - Manipulation?...... What manipulation?!!!

You would make a much better politician than me LOL

[che7win] 06/7/2013 13:04

rhwillcol,
there is another way, away from the competitive geographical locations in Montana, others can elaborate.

[rhwillcol] 06/7/2013 12:22

Thank you Superg1: very informative post re the water side, and all the various opportunities for Iofina within this arena. I wonder if you or anybody else could elaborate further re the ND water permit. This is from 19 June AGM Statement:

"Iofina's amended Montana water permit for 80,000 bbls per day remains under review by the Authorities. As part of the Group's application, Iofina has secured land for the first pumping station and for the location of the water depot. The feasibility of a water permit in North Dakota, where the water market is more competitive, is being revisited."

What do we understand by the wording "the feasibility of a water permit in North Dakota, where the water market is more competitive, is being revisited". Do you think that the ND water permit will be applied for after the Montana permit, or do you think it is simply too competitive now in that area? I guess some of those present at the AGM will have an answer to that? Maybe there is another way forward within ND?

By the way, very happy indeed with the water side, even if it were "just" Montana!

[semper vigilans] 06/7/2013 11:53

Joe - i'm sure that you mean ' wait for the markets to adjust the price upward to reflect the situation'!

[pcjoe] 06/7/2013 11:46

SG - If Iodine prices get down to $45 I wonder how many T of production that would threaten & close down? - A nice gap for IOF, SQM & any cheaper producers to fill - Cant imagine it would be easy for the departed producers to get back in, even when survivors, including us (The cheapest producer!), manipulate the price back up again

[superg1] 06/7/2013 10:49

bocker01 6 Jul'13 - 08:43 - 4801 of 4802 0 0Moderate | Ban

SG, I wondered what your view of developments on water to be. Do you expect an immediate application for additional rights when the current application is granted?

No idea, I just know that there is a lot of interest by many to get involved in the water boom. Hallibruton, Schlumberger, Veolia, Heckmann, Select energy, etc etc are all looking to feature in a a big way.
The key for investors seems to be achieving the water permit. With one achieved, the model is set to achieve more permits.
I still think most don't appreciate the difference between this rights application, and the rights swap deal. The latter has not been pursued yet, and won't imo until the water bureau consider water rights are fully appropriated.

The full appropriation point, will be determined by further rights, having an an environmental impact on the water systems. I think Bob Shaver in ND estimated 2 years for that point.
The rights swap, covers existing rights, already contained within the existing rights 'pot'.

Clearly IOF have the contract/demand for water, so one would assume they will press on with the next application once the first is done. All the hard work is done pre-application as you need the land/lease, rights of way etc etc, sorted before the application.



Would this be the trigger to enter negotiations for a more favourable joint venture or complete sell off? If so do you expect not one but three water rns over the next three months or so.

There are a few in the water business, that could be taken out. However no-one else has the key extra's IOF has or are ever likely too.

The rights swap deal is virtually unique. On a quick tot up, the USFW seem to have about 100k acre feet of old rights in the Montana and ND area.

Then add on the 35 billion barrel Atlantis water source, with the water discharge permit. The rights swap deal, and Atlantis resource would carry a very high value imo, if at any point the authorities stopped issuing water rights.
Atlantis having low contaminants, is commercially viable to clean and discharge into the Fresno reservoir. The Fresno has a 500k bpd storage capacity, so in theory, that amount could be discharged into the Fresno and taken out further downstream.

so there are 3 aspects to IOF water.

Normal rights, which they are currently applying for, just like any other applicant.

The rights swap which would give them access to existing USFW rights.

Direct supply by extraction of Atlantis water and discharge into the Fresno.



Funds raised to be used to considerably accelerate the iodine roll out with an additional announcement to that effect and encompassing details on where IOF see themselves in world rankings of iodine producers over the next one to two years. This would presumably lift the veil complete on our company's worth and shake a few people up.


That last bit covers my whole point re iodine. Yes they do intend to accelerate the roll out, and strike while Chile is in a mess.

As for world rankings, if they roll out plants in OK at the rate they intend to, then yes a few are going to be shaken, but not in one to 2 years.

I personally think the potential of io2,3 and 4, will stun the industry, but we have to wait for promise to turn into reality. I.E. get those plants up and running to full capacity. Then demonstrate the production. That imo is where the 'ping' the radar comment comes from.

Other producers won't need to wait for io10 to realise there is a significant threat about.

If they get 6 plants going near full capacity in prime locations in OK, then they should be producing more than many of the established Chile mines. That would be in the blink of an eye in the iodine world.

A transformation like that WILL grab attention. IO2 up to speed on this new brine will be the first indicator, with io3 and 4 to come.

There is in theory, no room for IOF in the industry at production increases at the level they could achieve.

Something will have to give, if it's the price, then some Chile mines will go, pull back on their production, or shelve expansion plans.

SCM Bullmine imo will be one of the first to disappear if IOF deliver. The demand rise rate is said to be around 4% per year (1200mt). I believe IOF with their planned roll out can add a lot more than that.

The critical price imo for the smaller mines in Chile will be around the $45-$50 mark per. I would imagine even Algorta (seawater use) are near that opex.

[bocker01] 06/7/2013 08:43

SG, I wondered what your view of developments on water to be. Do you expect an immediate application for additional rights when the current application is granted? Would this be the trigger to enter negotiations for a more favourable joint venture or complete sell off? If so do you expect not one but three water rns over the next three months or so. Funds raised to be used to considerably accelerate the iodine roll out with an additional announcement to that effect and encompassing details on where IOF see themselves in world rankings of iodine producers over the next one to two years. This would presumably lift the veil complete on our company's worth and shake a few people up.

[verymaryhinge] 06/7/2013 08:16

Bogg1e, a friendly word.. - for the avoidance of doubt - IF you continue to engage NL on this thread you will also get filtered by many (and certainly by me), which if you are ever looking to have a conversation with people is something of a hindrance.

best rgds

vmh