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 (29870)	1/15/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) of 35569

Look what COC did to IPM on the last disastrous press release. In any chain of custody it has to reach from the untouched ground to the final results from the assayer by whatever assay means is chosen. With BRE-X the final COC damning results came from an appointed DD company who was to drill wherever it wanted under strict COC control, split the samples obtained into a number of blind labelled samples for a group of 3 assay labs to inspect. There were probably blanks in there as well, but I have not read the full report. So with IPM, you get one such company to do this. They pick the drill site, drill, sample, split and arrange the assays and report back. The last samples from IPM were like that and they came back with very low values, and the stock fell. They could have told the company to do fire assays and the IPM assays and nickel sulfur fusions on this stuff, there is enough money at stake. That way an absolute and final determination would be made. None of this lingering, never never land stuff, with no final confirmations. I think IPM arranged it that way for a purpose. Care to guess why?? Bill

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next