| I was wrong about SI and IPMCF and Naxos. I thought I could
guess the players on the net but there are important things
we cannot guess about them. That is who they really are and what
their investments really are. I will freely admit that while
I promoted investment in Bre-X before any of us really knew
that was going on, I owned not a single share! Most people
would have thought I was heavily invested. I neither made
not lost a dime. Some customers made millions literally and
never credited my advice. Others that went their own way
lost.
Although people who would not agree with me and accuse me
of a bad agenda, I assure them that it is far more likely
with my bankbook that I was altruistic in my intentions.
I will admit that is a mystery to me what the players on
this site were really up to, then it is equally allowed
that you could be suspect of myself as well. But unreasonable
assumption is not called for.
What we do know is what the IPMCF people said and what finally
happened. They said there was some type of unusual gold
in a hard to assay form and in a hard to recover form in
an unusual environment geologically. This could be true,
I guess. But it was not proven in any convincing way.
Gold microclusters have been alluded to scientifically
in Scientific American Magazine. The true assay or
whether the process necessary to recover the target
metal from its bonds from the material is economic a hard point to
ponder. It is doubly hard to figure the reliability of the information if it is all wrapped up in the
necessity of using proprietary processes.
It also could be true that all this was used a smokescreen to
fleece investors out of their hard earned cash, as Bill
has pointed out. All the lab equipment and the hiring of
Bateman and all the activity on the site could be a complete,
seemingly constructive, sham. It has been done before hasn't
it?
Was their any recoverable gold there? Were all the company
people sincere? Were all the SI participants (I guess including
myself) who they said they were? Were they sincere? I guess
we will know the answers to these questions when we are all
in financial paradise.
In the end we invest with whom we trust. Or we get into something
that is plainly, and for at least a little while to come,
a stock on the rise.
Some points to ponder are, where does all the positive and
negative information come from, what is their agendum and
what should we make of it all? With technical matters it
would appear that it is hard for the average person to judge. It
is even hard for the expert to judge.
Let me give you and example. I told a gold mining or exploration
company about a mine in Timmins that had a good tonnage
and grade of gold outlined by an oil company in the 1980's.
Unfortunately that report had never been made public, as the
work was done on patented claims and Getty, the company
was under no obligation to report that information to the
public. Every local geologist I talked to knew about the
work but the conclusions and findings were not known. Indeed
Getty had chased off the property every local when the work
was under progress. When the company did its due diligence
base upon my allegation of the existence of a feasibility report,
they phoned several geologists in Timmins and those
redoubtables averred that there was not more than 30,000
tons of material there of grade, not the million tons that
I knew about. This of course convinced the company and they
backed out. They never asked the owners of the feasibility
to see its information. The local yokels "must know". And
of course the oil company stopped mining the stuff. Never
mind that their stopping of mining co-incided in with the
president's death AND the fall in gold prices. So the "experts"
do their due diligence with poor methods. They don't dig
deep enough. They react to superstition and assumption. They
believe what they hear. Don't you make that mistake. Be
flexible. Be cautious. But be prepared to believe what you
had assumed otherwise before.
EC<:-} |
