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: O. H. Rundell who wrote (28675)	11/29/1997 11:12:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) of 35569

Hello OH, I hope all is well with you. I know you didn't address your post to me but I did wish to comment on it. <<Did the company knowingly spend months on an uneconomic process? If so, why did the company waste the time and money?>> Firstly I think alot of people are assuming that the words in the press release "non-commercial" is synonomous with non-economical. I would also like to point out that non-commercial could also mean that the process itself may be economical but does not lend itself to mass production which would be needed for a commercial operation. This meaning the amount of equipment and facilities themselves create the economical problem. I don't think any of us knows whether the company realized that the processed they had developed was non-economical or not but that is the result of it all. It is possible that they were attempting to find the method required for maximizing extraction and after they had that method they could work on a method to mass produce what they did. It is very much like the cost of production discussions that several of us have had with Zeev. It is impossible to know what the costs are going to be until you know what the method is you will be using. IPM needs an administrative engineer IMO. A person that can look at both the costs and engineering side of the equation. <<Of course, according to Bateman the process they used was uneconomic and yielded low recovery.>> I'm not rereading the press release right now but where did Bateman say the process was EITHER uneconomic or yielded low recovery? <<Finally, after all these months, why weren't the recovery samples taken from a number of representative areas at Black Rock. Why just 2 trenches? Two 20-pound samples? Where are the 900 kg samples taken from the center and each of the 4 quadrants of Black Rock?>> Why just 2 trenches ? How many do you wish they had taken ? They wanted a verification of the fire assay not a resource calculation and Bateman went to virgin ground to do their COC. The thing that I do regret at this point is that I think that they are going to stick with this fire assay procedure and use it to calculate resource status with it. The stock will then be valued initially on a 2.4MM oz reserve for the first 100 ft and then we will start getting more drill results and greater reserves from additional drilling. IPM is still a king maker IMO. It is simply that royalty will take it's dear sweet time. I would also like to say for the record that it would certainly aid IPM and it's share holders if the management had more depth. Chuck

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next