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: Bob Jagow who wrote (26156)	11/14/1997 5:00:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Read Replies (2) of 35569

Now that I am over my initial shock...I'm not sure that it is so bad. 1. Look at the first paragraph, that says the board received confirmation from an independent lab that the modified fire assay procedure works. Presumably, the lab assayed samples gathered by the company. 2. So, the Board next has the COC samples gathered by BD and Bateman sent to the lab. Presto! Presence of gold on the property confirmed! 3. Now, everybody is pissed about the numbers, which I confess took me aback also. But check out the fine print below the table: "two limited areas" were the source of the samples. Some trenching, some augering. How many holes? DK. So, the "monster find" has not been verified by COC. Not that it would have been had the values from "two limited areas" been higher. But the presence of gold has been verified! FWIW, a heavy hitter I know who has been following IPM just left me this message: "IPM report out on their website. Quite favorable. Congratulations." Regards, Otter

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next