Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[ramu kumar] 01/8/2013 13:55

Pointless blaming bear raids, shorters etc. IOF have themselves to blame - it's better to say we'll complete 4 plants by year end and overachieve. We must get a handle on the production numbers - it's difficult to forecast total production for 2013 and run rates at year end if there are going to be delays and inconsistent runtimes at plants.

IOF will deliver but PIs & management must expect slippage. Also, once plants are fully commissioned, output will not be anywhere near targets - we cannot apply simple maths and say each plant will deliver 300t on completion, this will take time as there are many variables.

[iof multibagger] 01/8/2013 13:51

Buy buy buy! £4 coming

[iof multibagger] 01/8/2013 13:48

£4 by xmas 6 plants running keep buying these babbies all the way!

[bogg1e] 01/8/2013 13:47

Che, chumbo, cheers. I had it as 6-8 plants 2014, 8-12 plants 2015. I shall correct my calculations to have 6 plants for 2014 and 8 plants for 2015, cos i just cant see 1 plant going in per month. Chumbo true about the ppms. I was hoping for more than "ppm improving for IO#1" with this update but if IO#2 is not yet at full capacity then theres not much more that they could say for now I guess.

[chumbo] 01/8/2013 13:44

Bogg1e: Might make no difference at all, or we may get better numbers. We don't know what the brine is yet

[che7win] 01/8/2013 13:40

Boggle, the company never promised 8 plants 2014, it was always 4 to 6 plants with 8 as an outside probability, so np change as far as im concerned.

[bogg1e] 01/8/2013 13:36

Net for 2014, the only real difference i can see is that Iofina will roll out 6 plants instead of 8. That does have a material impact (probably -10% of forecast revenue) but its far from woeful.

[bobbyshilling] 01/8/2013 13:22

Current problems = a few weeks late on delivery. Everything else is good news.

[n3tleylucas] 01/8/2013 13:16

Anything from Investec? New target? Their 2014 numbers are looking woefully optimistic given the current problems.

[bobbyshilling] 01/8/2013 13:15

Well, every cloud has a silver lining.........loads more to stuff into the ISA now with this drop. They have proved the tech works, just time needed now.

[ramu kumar] 01/8/2013 13:14

Top up time

[maca1212] 01/8/2013 13:13

pcjoe,

artistic license on my part - sorry, perhaps I should moderate my grand statements in future, they always get me in trouble.

I will be monitoring here from time to time and if named may respond, but other than that I will be silent running.

I do sincerely hope that I have the wrong end of the stick, the base analysis here is amazing and there are some posters who although relatively unheralded have a huge depth of knowledge and deep research capabilities in this area.

So another way to look at it is that I know little or nothing (a very true statement with the correct emphasis).

M

[bogg1e] 01/8/2013 13:11

Cheers net, so about 3% of the company on loan.

[n3tleylucas] 01/8/2013 13:07

Shorting at record highs ...

[fairenough11] 01/8/2013 13:03

Ooops another chance at lows:-)))

[pcjoe] 01/8/2013 13:02

"that my Machiavellian ramblings, as pcjoe has concluded, are simply the ramblings of a random nutter."

Maca - Not one of my quotes - couldn`t accuse you of that

All the best for your future investments

[bogg1e] 01/8/2013 13:00

maca, welcome back :-)

[shonny] 01/8/2013 12:56

Maybe even today for 130p. It's looking promising. Just as I said, the 150p buyers well and truly suckered. What a bunch of clowns the rampers must be feeling now.

[maca1212] 01/8/2013 12:48

croc8,

Balls, that was supposed to be a grand sweeping exit.......

Maybe I misread today's RNS, but it looks like IOF are, surprisingly, having similar problems.

Spooky init?

[croc8] 01/8/2013 12:42

Maca, you do seem to be missing the point that Arysta were unable to get their tech working efficiently, whereas IOF can make the same site profitable and workable.

[shonny] 01/8/2013 12:40

Nellyb.

At the moment aht, asc,itv and tcg. Decent companies not rubbish like this.

Maybe I should have made it this week for my 130p target here

[testuser123] 01/8/2013 12:34

re the arysta thing. As Jeff pointed out at the last investor presentation, they simply could not get their tech working. You can't use charcoal absorption with oil contaminated source material. The oil blocks up the pores in the charcoal and prevents it from being able to absorb iodine.

[maca1212] 01/8/2013 12:20

madchick,

The available facts are that Arysta sold IOF their facility and all IP at what would appear to be an absolute bargain price.

If rugrat is correct and this facility location (together with the brine line hookups, brine leases etc all nicely squared away) is the honeypot for IO#2, 3 and 4 it is the deal of the decade.

- try a google of 'arysta brine lease' and unless the tidy up is complete you will see:

"Representative Transactions and Work Highlights :: McAfee & Taft ...
www.mcafeetaft.com › Our Services‎
We also developed a Brine Water Lease used by Arysta with owners of surface and mineral rights. Pointe Vista Development, LLC/Redevelopment of Lake ...)"

So it looks suspiciously (if you are inherently suspicious) like Arysta had in fact tied it all up and were ready to go into large scale extraction/production in their own name. But they were under heavy pressure over MIDAS in the US (there have been allegations of undue pressure on DPA scientists to approve and of undue influence in the passing of recommended 'safe' dosage levels I believe).

They ultimately asked for an ongoing litigation to be dropped in November 2012 -and were apparently so keen that this should happen, that they agreed to unilateral withdrawal of the product from sale and marketing in some 48 US states where it had been permitted. They are however still allowed to manufacture the product in the US for export.

IOF declined to name Arysta as the third party in the facility purchase, but it now looks a little too cosy, and if Arysta should just happen to pop up as a major IOC customer, the circle will be complete (just don't expect the take off deal to be at anywhere near the market spot price of iodine), then again on the supply side, what if the large independant oilie is simply Midstates (and only Midstates)?

Have a good look and listen to Midstates Petroleum's Q2 average BOE/d when they have their conference call on the 5th August, it should be reasonably easy to back calculate the likely brine volumes being produced (my base assumption is 10 times the liquid content, which has been quoted as 60% of the quoted boe/d) and easier to look forward up that slope.

Their miss lime output for Q4 2012 averaged circa 7Kboe/d. (brine estimate 7000*0.6*10= 42Kbpd over the whole estate).
In Q1 2013 it was circa 9.5Kboe/d and I would expect in Q2 they would be making something like 12-14Kboe/d. Given they are about 25-30% of the way through their 600 gross targets in their acreage I would think we are now at a point where new well output (14 brought online in Q4 2012) is being counter balanced by decline curves on existing wells.

Of course alternative theories are and will be available, and this is all of course just my surmise, but it does fit the available facts.

I have to say that IOF are no longer of any interest to me, but I wish all honest investors good luck and hope for your sakes that my Machiavellian ramblings, as pcjoe has concluded, are simply the ramblings of a random nutter.

To conclude that you are safe because others are apparently travelling with you, sounds like a safe assumption. But do at very least, have a think about whether they may have parachutes.

GLA - and that is now absolutely the last you will hear from me on here.

M

[bogg1e] 01/8/2013 12:15

roundup, i agree. The problem is analyzing output and revenue for 2013. Given the fact that IO#1 and 2 are not constant in their output or ppms, with differing opex values, is making 2013 revenue difficult to guesstimate. Any ideas.

At least it makes 2014 easier - we have hopefully IO#1-6 running at "full" capacity + 6 extra plants over the year, 1 every two months.

In regards to the water at Montana, the engineering report should be the final precursor to the permit being granted?