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: Paunch who wrote (33670)	8/13/1998 10:34:00 AM
From: ddl	Read Replies (2) of 35569

Paunch, there is something about the IPM release of the .046 you should be aware of. This information was not released by IPM. There was a mix up in the sampling bags. There were "blanks" included in the sampling which did not turn out blank and the reason I was told is that the packers mixed the numbering system. That's a plausible excuse, but it is not certain. You may have .046 overall, but under these circumstances, not many "reputable" mining co's would have accepted the results. The full report was never released, so not much can be said till then. My faith was on what Sam Shaw said when interviewed by Struthers. I wonder where Sam is these days...hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next