Some food for thought:
Reference the 14 Nov 97 press release: Who's idea was it to not release the results of the recovery tests that Bateman performed on the 2 each 20 lb chain of custody samples? This is the question and a very important question it is.
ASSUMPTION ONE: Bateman made the decision.
The 14 Nov 97 press release seems to imply that Bateman was the one who decided not to release the recovery results although this point is not clear. If this is true, it could be very significant. If the recovery results were less than the assay results, would Bateman risk their reputation to protect IPM by hiding this information, which would be considered bad news by any reasonable person? Would Bateman be a party to such a coverup? If on the other hand, the results were about the same as the assay results, why hide them because they "...do not represent a meaningful average of the total grid." and because they "...should not be used for the purpose of calculating a resource." These same two reasons also apply to the assay results and assay results were released.
If alternatively, the recovery results were higher than the assay results, would Bateman be concerned about being a party to hyping the stock by providing high recovery numbers that were not representative of the entire grid? Also,if the recovery numbers were higher than the assay numbers, would NASDAQ and others who had to approve the press release object to the recovery numbers on the grounds that the numbers would hype the stock and were not representative of the entire grid?
ASSUMPTION TWO: IPM made the decision.
Is this the worst possible scenario? There is only one feasible reason that IPM would not want to disclose the recovery results and that is because the recovery results were lower than the assay results. However, these lower figures would certainly be considered bad news; and, as discussed earlier, would Bateman risk their reputation by being a party to hiding bad recovery numbers? If Bateman was convinced to not include the low recovery results in the press release, would NASDAQ and the other reviewing authorities ask about the recovery numbers and insist on them being included in the press release if they were bad?
Is it possible that Bateman made the decision to not include the
recovery numbers because the recovery numbers were significantly higher than the assay numbers and Bateman did not want to be a party to hyping the stock with numbers that were not representative of the entire grid and also were obtained by a process that would "...most likely not be used for commercial development of the project."?
If the institutions have been briefed on the recovery results that we have not been given, is it against the law for them to trade the stock publicly based on this information until it becomes public knowledge? Is it reasonable that the recovery information could be used to persuade institutions to back IPM with a loan and to not sell their existing holdings?
Answer the questions for yourself and draw your own conclusion. If some institutions agree to loan IPM $5 to $10 million in the near future, will this provide some insight helpful in drawing this conclusion?
Think for yourself,
Rick |
