Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2)	9/2/1996 9:23:00 PM
From: Daniel M. Whipple	Respond to of 35569

Zeev: Your calculations are based on the 1 sq km - 100' deep. This project has more than 6 grids of equal size. The mineralization of the 1 grid is open on all sides and depth. The requirements to achieve the 50% ownership should not be hard or costly to achieve. Your calculations do not give any credit for the hard rock area. These results have not been released. These results may project the stock upward (future upside). The inital shows that in the 1st grid the mineralization Probably extends to 300'+- before hitting bedrock. When you review the press releases (looking for reasoning to what is happening),I see that everything was on schedule until they supposedly location the host rock. At this point they suspended the drilling program on the other grids, to focus on the supposed host rock. I am trying not to be so positive. I am not trying to convience you. I would like for you to critique my assessment. I feel that if the host rock had not been suppossedly located, this project would be well into the 3rd/4th grid. The next press release will probably contain the assays on the deep drillings on the 1st grid and host rock area, a project report from BD,next drilling program. All the additional grids,depth,host rock, improved extraction,none of these do you feel would possibly produce any upside to the stock price? Regards, Daniel

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2)	9/2/1996 9:49:00 PM
From: Eric Tai	Respond to of 35569

Zeev, In general I agree with your calculation. So let us use it as a starting point. You calculated that IPMC worth $4 now (25% of BSR) and $8 in Oct 98 (50% of BSR). First you are worried about the dilution to issue shares for exploration and maybe JV required. But I think that the conservation US$30 per oz of Au and Pt in the ground already caters for this. For production mining companies, right now 1 oz of gold is valued at over C$150 (US110) or more in the ground, so why do we evaluate junior mining reseves at much lower price - to cater for possible dilution required to bring the mines up to full production and the risks involved in doing so. You do not think there are upsides for IPMC, but I can list some possible upsides : 1) The recovery grade can be improved. In fact, Jun 4 news release indicated they are able increase it to 0.126 opt Pt and 0.066 opt Au. This is a 40% increse compared with the grade you use. Granted they still need Behre Dolbear to verify this, on the other hand, they may be improved this to a even higher grade. 2) There are some other PGMs in their ore and may add more values to it. The same Jun 4 news release indicated they have 0.086 opt Pd potential there. Their Dec 15. 95 news indicated that they have Rh (with unknown grade) in their ore also. 3) They can increase the ownership of BSR to 80%. After they earn their 50% interest with a 1000 tons per day plant, they can increase the tonnage to 10000 tons per day and earn another 20%. They can earn the next 10% by paying Phoenix 10000 ounces of gold or cash equivalent. 4) They can increase the tonnage by drilling deeper. All the tonnage calculated so far (50m tons) are based on 100' depth. Their 5 deep holes drilled there have 250 - 450 ft of material before reaching bed rock. So there is a potential to increase the tonnage a few times. While I am not saying all the material will have same or better grade, I also cannot believe that all mineralization stopped exactly at 100 ft. 5) They have 6 sq. km. of similar type of land. The reason they chose to concentrate on one sq km is to be able to do a systematic drilling, metallurgy, then infill drilling, then pre-feasibility etc to earn their 50% interest. The other 5 sq km are equally likely to have mineralization. Again, I am not saying we should multiple the whole thing by 6, but there is a high chance there will be some mineralization on some of those land. 6) They think that they find the source rock for the mineralization. Only drilling and assaying will tell whether this is the case. Again, they have chances of finding more minerals in the hard rock area. 7) Your US$30 per oz of gold or Pt are too conservative. Actually I myself have been using a very conservative figure of C$50 (US$37) and I find that most of the time my evaluation of a company is only half of the market price. I find out that a lot of small company reserves are evaulating at about C$100 (US$70) or more these days. I am not suggesting that we should use the aggressive US$70, but I think a US$50 is already quite conservative viewing today's market. In conclusion, if you are able to buy a company worth US$4 today by paying about US$2.5 and which has quite a few upside potentials, it may not be such a bad deal after all. P.S. - I am not suggesting that IPMC is without risks. Like any other junior mining companies, it still has to go thru a lot of exploration risks, metallurgical risks, financial risks, regulation risks etc. in order to reach the production stage. But this is always part of a high risk high return game.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2)	2/16/1998 4:05:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 35569

Yes, I see what you mean, Zeev. This is the beauty of SI, all the posts remain accessible, giving good insight to the history and credibility of companies....... and of posters. ......... salud ................. marcos