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: Turboe who wrote (13300)	6/24/1997 8:22:00 AM
From: Bruce McGaughey	of 35569

I wasn't at the AGM. All I know is what I can read here. What I say, following, is mere speculation. The talk here of a "halt" is intriguing, as is the image of management huddled in a room awaiting the BD report before the AGM. But, I don't think a BD report is just around the bend. Go back and reread Lee Furlong's message from the AGM. I think what happened is that BD balked on signing off on IPM's recovery process and suggested that IPM come up with a better fire assay. Now that IPM has that, they have to re-assay all the previous samples. BD may sign off after that but that may take some time. In his message, Lee stated that the new numbers from the latest drilling would be released "early next week". It wasn't released yesterday...maybe today ?? C.L. stated that the Canadian exchange was messing around with IPM again. Maybe they don't like the numbers since the assay is so new and not the same process as the "recovery process" used earlier. Again, this is all speculation on my part. Am I wrong ?? Let me know.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next