Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 24/1/2014 09:14

There is a stated time period, but those are the max time frames which they rarely use. E.G. They had until 30th Jan for that draft deny.

The point being whether way of the bullish view and posts suggesting, aha 30th the shorts will quiver, or bears saying aha doom on the way. Then both events are unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely if any logic is applied and understanding of the process.

So it's a case of wait and see.

Dig

Do you still have that link/doc, or an idea of what to use as a search word here to find your post.

[bobsworth] 24/1/2014 09:05

Thanks sg1 for clarifying time frames.

[tsmith2] 24/1/2014 08:59

as they've always maintained - water permit v nice upside but non core

[superg1] 24/1/2014 08:51

Bob

I don't share the view that the 30th is a do or die date. If the bureau look at the facts and wish to decide to continue to deny the permit, that sort of decision wouldn't be instant. Equally that could be said of a decision to grant.

There is a determination period available post meeting, which could mean the decision could take many weeks.

So those having post 30th as regular rns checking time may be wrong.

As stated before. In that doc that one PI posted, it states, that work should be suspended when the ground is wet. So if granted, the work for any depot was never going to start until the ground is firm/dry. So Q2/Q3 if it is to happen, which makes the current determination/public notice periods, irrelevant.

If the process dragged on the late summer, then I would question the ability to construct a depot in the wet/winter months, based on that clause (if I read it right)

I think Dig posted it, it's on this thread somewhere

[n3tleylucas] 24/1/2014 08:33

You build the water up so much you are just asking for a kicking.

85

[bobsworth] 24/1/2014 08:28

This time next week the water rights meeting will be done and dusted. Fingers crossed its a success for Iofina as its just the boost we need right now.

[superg1] 24/1/2014 08:25

MM3

From what I just read, from a number of directions, the figures are way out and miss some pretty significant factors.

It will be adjusted I suspect, but no use trying to point fingers at which point the error was made. 'Wasn't me' T shirts being donned perhaps

Damage done now, the last 2 days can't be rewound. Re-group and move on.

[captain_kurt] 24/1/2014 08:16

Chilean iodine gets exported from ports Antofagasta and Iququi.
And that is where the strikes are occuring.

[rogerbridge] 24/1/2014 08:14

Bloody mix up For sure. We all need figures to be as accurate as possible. The tricky thing is the interpretation and forward projections.
All could change by this time next week if water meeting is successful.

[mickharkins1] 24/1/2014 07:44

Let's see....but I still maintain the note must have been seen and reviewed by the company prior to being released which means they also missed the error(s), which either way is not good.

[superg1] 24/1/2014 07:41

mm3

If wrong it will be a very hard admission to make.

Every sound bouncing around points to serious errors. Notes are meant to be independent companies provide info and then the broker formulates their assessment of that.

To what extent the BOD were aware/endorsed it may never be known.

Of course GMP may issue a note, so what if their figures have a big difference based on the same info. If Numis are right, the margins should not have a big gap.

However the logic of showing the cost of goods at the going rate, doesn't match with the opex level they mention, so a basic error perhaps.

[monkeymagic3] 24/1/2014 07:26

I am going to assume the NUMIS note is correct until they or the company tell me otherwise. Why?

Because almost everything that has been said to be "correct" in the past, despite being contrary to official guidance, was wrong. Pretty much everything.

So I will wait (but only for a very small while).

[naphar] 24/1/2014 07:23

Mickharkins1

When you read the note, the p&l numbers don't seem to tie to the states assumptions when it comes to revenue and cost assumptions.
At worst, if they sold all output as crystaline iodine you would expect a gross profit percentage of about 45%. That's not what their p&l says. And it makes a huge difference to the EPS!

That's why people are so annoyed and believe a monumental error was made

[che7win] 24/1/2014 06:57

Mick,
You're wrong, watch and see.

[mickharkins1] 24/1/2014 01:51

I don't believe there is even a remote possibility that the note went out without being reviewed and blessed by IOF's management...it may be a very conservative outlook but I would be surprised if there are such basic errors on pricing/costing assumptions as is being claimed.

[festario] 24/1/2014 01:20

Worraps, more like Fred Karno's Circus.... and nobody should be old enough to remember that!

Can anyone confirm whether the Nomad have admitted any errors, or are we simply hoping that they are wrong?

[captain_kurt] 23/1/2014 23:41

Same happened with FUM, broker note put a target of 80p for 2014 when they expect to launch their CSD500 condom in 3 continents in 2014. Crazy

[naphar] 23/1/2014 23:32

Don't think Investec did, not the first one anyhow.

[bobsworth] 23/1/2014 23:22

You would have thought that Numis would have shown Iofina their draft before publishing. Or maybe they did!

[superg1] 23/1/2014 23:05

Scrut just a point or two, in good faith, you know I would want success for the share.

I tend to remember comments so looked back after todays comment. The first point is that 100 wells were due to be drilled plus those already in play.

But

Trading update 16th Oct

13 wells drilled in Q3 2013, 13,412 metres drilled in Q3 2013

26 wells drilled in H1 2013 36,347 metres drilled in H1 2013

Trading update today

12 wells drilled in Q4 2013, 24 wells drilled in H2 2013;

-- 15,152m drilled in Q4 2013, 32,570m drilled in H2 2013;


13 in Q3 plus 12 in Q4 is 25 but they state 24 for H2.

However the H2 total is shown as 32,570. A full 4000 metres difference and a well lost somewhere, from Q3 v the earlier Q3 metres report of 13,412.

(Q3) 13,412 + (Q4) 15,152 does not make 32,570 for H2 as reported today

It's not a small error it's a 14% difference. On the large figure 4000 metres would account for 3 wells.

So what did they do, and why are the figures so different.

None of it adds up.

The talk is of big reductions in drilling times but they have not done the drilling achieved in 2012

2012 147,00 meters drilled

2013 69,000 m drilled. 65,000 if you take off the mysterious 4000m gain.


The larger figure is 47% of last years drilling, and as everyone seems to use metres drilled re revenue, then you now potentially already know that news is coming where the full yoy revenue halved at least. Not ignoring the fact that they upped the staff to 665 v around 530 prior.

In fact 2103 metres drilled are down 19000 on 2011 performance.

We had this debate on the half year, but at some point soon, GDL are going to report that revenues were down over 50% going by the details.

You know what the MMs will do with that.

In fact an earlier rns talking of a 110 well drill event in conjunction with another turns into 70 wells in the same rns ??.

That was on top of the 100 supposedly going to be drilled, which ended up as 26 contributed in H2.

Remember the hype of getting a chunk of these wells

CNPC has announced plans to drill a total of 1,500 - 2,000 wells in 2013, across its acreage; this represents a considerable increase compared with 2012. If this initial trial is deemed successful, it is expected that CNPC would formally decide that the completion methodology in the Qinshui Basin will be LiFaBriC, Greka's proprietary completion methodology.

Greka had 100 to do, on one contract, some wells of a 110 well deal that said 70 in the same rns.

The h2 results are 26 wells.

Now the hype is back with 180 this year ???

The actual is less than 2011 and half the revenue of last year.

Yes I'm cautious about what GDL say.

That test well result news never came a far as I can see. They had 100 wells to drill for Sinopec subject to a successful first 20. Plus a share of drilling 110 for CNPC I believe. 100 post Chinese new year and the others mid year on

re Sinopec supposed to start in Feb, in Sept they said

The Company is under contract to drill 100 wells subject to successful drilling of the first 20 drilled across the Sinopec Huabei acreage inclusive of the Xunyi Block. The Company!--s GD75-12 and GD75-14 are currently drilling under this program. Rig GD75-14 has completed one directional well and is currently drilling the second directional well of a seven well program.

30th Sept 7 months after the mentioned start date, they were on number 2.


Now in todays rns, we are talking Chinese new year and a big backlog, a backlog that should have mostly drilled in 2013.

Did that test well turn out to be a dud, where is all the evidence to show their methods are superior re gas yields, as that is what the key is here re their tech.

I assume someone spotted the figures issue re Q3 Q4 and may have the answer.

[naphar] 23/1/2014 22:57

Sorry, new phone today lol

[worraps] 23/1/2014 22:52

naphar

Er, it's 'worraps'.....although I do have 'worries' it's true, especially about certain financial issues at the moment!

[worraps] 23/1/2014 22:50

mm3 Sorry, I'm a bit dense sometimes. It's my age you know.

[naphar] 23/1/2014 22:22

Yes worries, unfortunately old enough!

Oops, that should read yes worraps!