Hello All: I am a share-holder in IMM. I have 10K shares and I would very much like to purchase more. I am reluctant to become further involved since we are all betting on a concept without really having any hard financials and proof that the technology is commercially viable. I think Mad Monk will probably get us some good feedback on the financial side. I am concerned about the technical side.
In the course of my due diligence, I asked a nuclear physicist, who regularly posts on SI, whether IMM's claims as depicted on their website were possible. He said that theoretically they were.
I also asked two geo-physicists about the purported capabilities of the EM Sounder. One is Australian and one is from the UK. I only asked them to visit the IMM website and take a quick look at the exhibits and give me their impressions. I am hesitant to use their names because one expressed very little interest in serving as an investment advisor for this company. And I did not receive permission from the other to use his name. If anyone doubts my veracity, I would be happy to provide you their names via e-mail.
Let it suffice that one was very skeptical and the other only moderately skeptical of the capabilities of the EM Sounder. Should this concern us? I think yes. Is it possible that private research can be ahead of academic research? You bet. Anyone ever visit Bell Labs or an IBM research facility?
I am including excerpts from their private e-mails to me. I invite Dr. Stamm or anyone associated with the EM Sounder technology to contribute to this discussion and resolve some of the fundamental critiques. I think we will be all better for it...
E-mail I:
<<Based entirely on the information of the EMSounder at the IMMM web site, I cannot believe the airborne system can penetrate through 12,000 feet of ground with a resolution of several feet. Even if the ground was totally composed of dry sand, this would still be bending the laws of physics (in particular, the radar range equation and Rayleigh resolution criteria).
Putting it another way, their claim follows that the EMSounder can penetrate more than 1000 wavelengths into the ground. The best of the current commercial and experimental GPR system operating under close to ideal real conditions can penetrate a maximum of around 50 wavelengths. Even this is very close to the limitations set by physics, yet the EMSounder claim is a factor of 20 more!>>
E-mail 2
<< It is very difficult to comment on a technique that I
have not seen the results of. Suffice it to say that as an investor, the
stock is of mild interest for me. As a geophysicist, I have grave doubts
about some of the claims for EM Sounder. As for UPR, this strikes me as a no lose situation for them. From their point of view, why not give it a try? Minerals typically occur at far shallower depths than
hydrocarbons, so the real value may be here. I hope this helps.>>
I would like to repeat that I am excited about IMM. I feel that this company is an ideal medium for participating in the discoveries of many exploration companies for many years to come. If this technology works, this company will be a very strong performer for its shareholders. My major concern is their technology. I look forward to any replies that will clarify the capabilities of their technology.
marty |
