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: Ron Struthers who wrote (26739)	11/16/1997 4:07:00 PM
From: Eric Tai	Read Replies (2) of 35569

Ron, I think Albert's question of why the FA result is much lower this time compared with Jun 24 PR is a common one and I am glad you answered it. However, if IPMCF knew at that time that Auric was going to charge them big bucks for the FA procedure, maybe they should not even publish the results of the Auric FA in the first place in the June 24 PR. If they are not going to buy that procedure and will never able to use it to duplicate the results, what is the point of publishing it. It just misled investors thinking that it is a <<standard fire assay>> and that is why most of us are expecting that Bateman or BD or any lab can just use the same procedure and get similar results. At the very least, the company should make this very clear that this is a propriety Auric procedure and when they decided not to buy it, should let the investors know about it. Then the investors won't be caught in surprise to find out that actually the FA today is not the same one as they use in Jun 24 and thus the results might differ a lot.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next