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: Bruce McGaughey who wrote (13303)	6/24/1997 9:00:00 AM
From: ddl	of 35569

Bruce, we all know what happened to IPM the last time they released unsuported numbers. I hope that never happens again. In so far as a new assay, if it's an assay proceedure generally accepted by the "establishement" then IPM is onto something. BUT if it's an eosoteric assay, then they MUST get BD to sign off on that assay, otherwise, suspension pending verification...yek. IMO, IPM will have to get BD to sign off on the recovery first because it's an eosoteric assay proceedure. Then, once the new assay proceedure consistently confirms the recovery numbers, BD will sign off on it and it can be applied to all their drill cores. I don't think the market will accept new assay numbers yet. IPM has to get the BD sign-off first. - denis

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next