International Precious Metals (IPMCF) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : International Precious Metals (IPMCF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: payman emamian who wrote (26561)	11/15/1997 9:52:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) of 35569

Hi Payman, I don't think those numbers are too aggressive because I expect the extraction numbers are larger. The biggest problem with the thread right now (which was the case with myself as well yesterday is the fact that we didn't see in black and white what we had anticipated because they had fire assay numbers not extraction numbers. This is exactly what brought me back to reality. There are many companies out there where the extraction numbers are different then the assay numbers that is why there has been such a controversy over the last few years over acceptable ways to assay dirt. The industry wanted fire assay numbers from IPM so IPM gave them fire assay numbers. The share holders want recovery numbers. We will get them in due time when a process has been chosen. I can't even read these posts as fast as they are being put up. I think everyone should step back and calm down for a few minutes and maybe you will start to see what I have. regards, Chuck

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next