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: Furry Otter who wrote (20727)	9/12/1997 3:35:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	of 35569

Furry, You summed it up very well. I was a bit bothered also at first about why IPM didn't mention Bateman in its Aug 4 release. My take on that now is that they didn't bring in Bateman to supplement the BD audit but rather as an engineering company to begin mine design. (Recall that Ron Struthers mentioned that IPM had engaged an engineering company to begin mine design.) If so, that would explain why they didn't feel a need to mention Bateman in the Aug 4 release on the BD request for an additional 30 days. Why now have Bateman look at the recovery process results? May be due to problems but I think they would have been aware of problems long ago and would have done something about them earlier. I think it's more likely that they wanted a second company to sign off on the results for added credibility (or BD may have requested this). Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Alan

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next