Tim,
This may be a case of me not being able to see the forest for the trees... I'm not sure what in the above statements you find troubling, but I try to stay in close contact with the company and what is going on, and I haven't seen any variance from their original statements in Dec., other than a delay so that they could experiment with a finer mesh to increase recovery, and that was acceptable, even welcome to me as a shareholder. The original plan was to test the recovery technique up to 500 kg., and then BD would step in and do their thing. BD is NOT there to develop the technology. I would think they would be involved to the extent of watching the procedures, (overseeing them), and they may even offer suggestions, but at the end of it all, what really matters is that they can do it alone. The sign off on recovery will be done completely by BD, securing the samples, transporting them, and using IPM's process to recover the gold. If it can't be done independently, then it's back to square one. It would'nt matter if IPM said it had 25 oz/ton, if it can't be done independently, then it's worthless.
What would the name of the lab, who owns it, and the contract between BD and IPM tell you? Do you think there is a clause that gives IPM the right to say whatever they want, with BD's name attached? Have you called BD? Have you found any instances where they verified a result that later turned out to be false? What exactly is it that you doubt about their integrity? Have you called the Midas Fund and verified that they own IPM stock? Have you called IPM and voiced your concerns? I look forward to seeing what your research produces.
Best,
Kim |
