Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[the librarian] 07/6/2013 07:26

Ioditech, generate about $35 mill in revenue, not mentioned or seem to be aware of IOF, it will have a big impact on them one way or another. Will IOF supply them or....?

Interesting that Iodine is used in car air bags as well. hxxp://www.ithinkbigger.com/index.php/how-to-strategies/current-issue/item/21317-kc-entrepreneurs-innovating-with-ioditech

[superg1] 07/6/2013 06:00

Mech T

As pointed out to that poster I never said that about CR, I was talking about the CR thread (top traders) where they chase penny share news. That thread has a number of clowns on it, Top seems OK.

That guy got it all wrong. I didn't know at the time who CR was. Tap CR in the BB box and you get a host of threads available.

Lib I haven't had time yet to look at what you posted.

[warmsun] 07/6/2013 00:36

.....and regardless of what he (CR) says, it will have no impact whatsoever on the prospects of our company! Let's move on.....

[engelo] 07/6/2013 00:24

bobsworth: to add to SG's 1128 the plan is to get the first application granted, then submit the 2nd and eventually the 3rd.

Jeff P stated at the PI presentation that it was expected the 1st app would take 3 months to process, and that the chance of success was 99%.

[the librarian] 06/6/2013 23:36

You are slowing down in your old age superg, :-). I was expecting a synopsis of the Ioditech move and the old 'under the radar' thing is proven yet again with no mention by Ioditech of IOF!

[diggulden] 06/6/2013 23:24

I typed '5CFS water flow rate' into Google, the results scared me so decided to ask here instead! Long day....

[battery] 06/6/2013 23:22

Digg..

Wiki is your friend.!! :-)

[diggulden] 06/6/2013 23:21

Excellant, thanks for the figures Battery. The drop from 1500CFS to 5CFS concerned me, but only because of my complete lack of understanding on the matter!

[battery] 06/6/2013 23:17

To put some numbers on the revised application...

10k acre-feet per year equates to 212k bpd.
That equates to a cu. ft per sec (cfs) rate of 13.8.

The reduced quantity of water in the revised application of 80.7 k bpd would equate to a cfs rate of 5.25

So, the original 1500 cfs figure is crazy - it should've been 15 not 1500. Maybe the decimal point was left off or smudged.!!

I've added the above to the water tab in the spreadsheet

[diggulden] 06/6/2013 23:15

Some mention of Iodine being a possible better catalyst for Graphene.....

[cordone] 06/6/2013 22:37

SG,

I did note one of their previous Iodine reports ran at 3850 GBP.
Eyewatering!!

[superg1] 06/6/2013 22:36

Cordone

I'd love to see one of those reports, but I suspect it would be full of rubbish and incorrect details, with some poor sod paying for poor research.

Most in the industry keep production rates to themselves. It only seems that Sirocco and SQM quote figures.

[superg1] 06/6/2013 22:30

????

Did you miss the many posts Bob on the subject, apologies if you did.

The application was split into 3 with the first app in, as in the rns.

Going for one big depot would have taken a lot longer. So they are going or 3 depots, in total amounting to over 200k bpd.

The closer a depot is to the water need, the higher the price charged can be per barrel as haulage charges are reduced.

So the first step is depot 1 (3 intended) at 75k bpd. The price pb of cold is said to be $1 to $2 with near $6 pb for hot.

If you go back to the JV IOF were looking at 30 cents to 50 cents pb from a total of 100k bpd in Montana due to the 50/50 share on the JV (11m PA to 18m)

Now it's $27m to $54m revenue potential (ignoring hot water) from one 75k bpd depot, with 2 more intended for Montana.

The same is due to happen in ND, we'll just have to wait and see.

So the overall picture changed from 200k bpd at 30 cents to 50 cents pb for IOF, to a full potential of 400k bpd at 41 to $2 pb with up to $6 for hot.


In fact (this may sound confusing). If IOF did just 15k bpd of hot water, at the current rates, the profit would be higher, than the entire original JV contract was worth to IOF pre the JV split (200k bpd).

I know the opex on hot water, a few in the business advertise it. The tech available heats the water, in the same time frame it takes to fill a truck with cold water.

So the potential now since the Hal break is much higher in revenue terms.

BUT we don't need water.

My thoughts are as soon as we get rights, a new JV will appear on a far better deal than before, or an outright buy of the water side of the business.

[diggulden] 06/6/2013 22:25

Rugrat, you obviously have a better understanding of flow rates than me (wouldn't be hard!).
A flow rate of 5CFS, what does equate to in real terms for us?

[cordone] 06/6/2013 22:23

SG et al,

Many thanks for all the hours of research you put into IOF, those of us who read up on it all should count ourselves fortunate that we have such a valuable resource in our midst..

Have you had access to any of these rather pricey Roskill reports on the Iodine market?
A new one has just been released.

hxxp://www.roskill.com/reports/industrial-minerals/news/new-iodine-market-report

[rugrat2] 06/6/2013 22:19

The amended application has been visible (if you queried the system) on the dnrc database since 6 May - see my post 23063 on the old thread. As for the 1500cfs rate on the original application, I could never make any sense of that, and I assumed it to be a mistake - I did post the number of seconds it would take to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool - it wasn't many!

[diggulden] 06/6/2013 21:40

Bobsworth, good post and question.

We know Iofina were told to amend the application to a smaller amount, I seem to recall told to start smaller, then build up once accepted, so the smaller AC-Ft was expected. What I don't understand, and maybe SG can clarify, the old permit app was for 1,500CFS, new one only 5CFS. What will that actually mean in terms of how much and at what rate we can discharge water from the river?

[supreme mo] 06/6/2013 21:26

Bobsworth, Madchick sorry for not replying sooner - thanks Yorkshiret for answering.....Sg1 you once said everyone should do their own research - i'm trying to learn from the master ;-D Its been there for a couple of days - I assumed it had already been posted lol

[bobsworth] 06/6/2013 21:06

With reference to pdf links kindly posted on the bb today, i.e. the original application, dated 25th March – priority date March 19th:

hxxp://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_rts/appro_info/applications/roosevelt/40S-30065772.pdf

and the amended water application, dated 3rd June – priority date April 29th

hxxp://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_rts/appro_info/applications/roosevelt/40S-30066181.pdf

As they show very big differences in max flow rates & max volume between the two applications i.e., 1,500 CFS/10,000 AC-FT v 5.0 CFS/3,800 AC-FT, can someone please explain exactly what this means and its significance for Iofina.

For example as it has been referred to as an amendment to the original application, should it be interpreted as a significant drop in the intended water output a marketing. Or have I, as I suspect, interpreted this wrongly and got the wrong end of the stick?

[skylite] 06/6/2013 20:58

You're right about John G at GKP Sg; mind he is a flippin brilliant geologist!

I've read a fair bit of that guys stuff and to be fair I liked his style, I guess like every online guru with a following, there's pressure to put more eye catching posts and blogs out, in volume, and the time he would have taken to research his musings is eroded.

No worries, it won't change a thing.