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: Ron Struthers who wrote (26689)	11/16/1997 2:07:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (4) of 35569

Ron: I have to disagree with your conclusion, unless you have additional sources of information we are not privy to. Why should we assume the random samples are from a lower grade and not a higher grade ore? The number are so close to the numbers BD reported in 1995 for the same grid that I would say we must assume the number reported then are all we'll get. I see no FACTUAL base for assuming that we will get an average of .1 to .15 oz/ton as you propose. The main issue of extraction cost is wide open and not even close to resolution. So far, unfortunately, I see a repeat of the fateful 450 tons bulk sample of last year. The lesson, last year Hoare dumped a bunch a stock (as reported to us by CL at the time) into the "hype" of the 450 tons fiasco, and in the last few months, I must look at the numbers and the trading range and conclude that in due time we will find out Hoare and others did the same on the orchestrated rallies first to 8 and then twice to 6. Sorry Ron but unless I get some fatcs that say otherwise, I have to go with what the action of the stock tells me. I am not even buying on a dip to 3.5. Zeev

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next