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: go4it who wrote (28952)	12/5/1997 12:33:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) of 35569

Charles: I view today's financing news as positive. The fact they were able to get some money to continue on is positive. Also, according to the details they dislcosed, it doesn't appear they got screwed with the financing (e.g. the financing was not at a substantial discount to the price). I'm starting to give more credence to GPGI's argument, however. IPM talked about making progress towards a resource calculation because they now have a certified fire assay. But what good is having a resource calculation without an economic recovery process (they didn't mention progress in moving toward an economic recovery process)? To put it another way, someone could probably come us with a resource calculation for gold in seawater, but it would be worthless without an economic means of extracting it. I know we've talked about all this before, but the PR did not mention progress towards an economic recovery method, which I view as far more important than a resource calculation at this point. With their limited funds, I would think this would be top priority rather than compiling thousands of assay results.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next