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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (23630)	10/29/1997 5:39:00 AM
From: Bruno	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

>No, I don't think it is a scam. I do believe they have had problems (hopefully resolved) in consistently producing the numbers mentioned above, thus the numerous delays in the verification process. But I don't believe for a moment that it is a scam.< Excellent post Larry, I agree with you as does the market hence the stock price. The hoped for 0.25 OPT au and 0.80 opt au/pt are IMO not yet being achieved which I agree account's for the delay. Maybe we should expect a smaller sign off if that is all BD can 'consistently' produce at this stage, which is not to say the higher figures are unobtainable. A possible scenario is: the management have a large stake in this company.They might therefore prefer to wait a few months, as has now become the case, to work with BD to achieve the best consistent results possible.Then to release the results for the maximum beneficial effect on the share price. This is a long term hold, high risk stock but definietly a legitimate company with a legitimate target. IMO we should be looking for 0.18 opt au and 0.4 opt pgm sign off at this stage and a share price of $8-10 by Christmas, anything more is a bonus. Bruno

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (23630)	10/29/1997 8:43:00 AM
From: strenlich	Respond to of 35569

<<My question to you is: why are so darned many people so worried about this stock? Could it be that there is something to it? Could it be that a lot of marginal operations, which are in enough trouble as it is, will be in even more trouble if you can leach precious metals right out of the desert dirt? Is that why everybody and their brother feels the need to attack this company? Nah, couldn't be. It's just a scam, and all of these folks who feel the need to tell us so over and over again are just trying to save us from ourselves.>> Thanks For This Post on EC Thread. One Recovery system I looked at had a recovery cost of about $150/oz Au. This plant was never completed and ran into financial/management problems. It is now obsolete anyway as one is being looked into with a recovery cost of $105/oz Au. recovered.EC posted about a Barrick mine whose recovery costs were $300/oz Au. I have never shorted stock but Barrick/Dome would be logical shorts should these companies take off.Munk's future looks bleak. Perhaps Munk could munch on muench for awhile. -regards-strenlich