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: go4it who wrote (24079)	11/3/1997 9:00:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Chuck; I think the best way is for IPM to do some intermediate "hand holding" confirmatory assays if they care at all for the shareholders. I do not know what BD did at the start. Do not forget BRE-X was done with a DD inspector that was hamstrung by limitations, and it finally came out that they did not supervise drilling, or sampling, and so they assayed the salted core and we had BRE-X. There seems to be a pattern of concealment around the whole company that is the badge of scam. IPM owns the property(subject to payment) and it is a shareholder company and there should be no secrets from the shareholders. IPM has nothing to fear about revealing any corporate or assay result at all. Nothing can be stolen, the land is secure. The extraction method is either patentable or nor, if not it is just a trade secret and it will soon come out(but that is an allowable secret to be kept), if patentable it must be published in the application which should already be submitted. So IPM has nothing that should be a secret from the SH. Yet they are quiet? WHY? Usually the only reason for secrecy is to steal a march on someone else. If you option the property to 60-70% and find 10 billion worth of gold you want to buy the remaining 30-40% for less than 3-4 Billion$, so you keep it all quiet. Of course what fool enters into such a muzzled option agreement?, not experienced explorationists, they insist on dual reporting from the assay lab and have a geologist at each drill site to confirm core logs/samples etc., and that gets reported and has a good reportable path at all times. Now Furlong has been around long enough to know this, and still the secrecy. It walks like a scam, talks like a scam, smells like a scam, is it a rose by another name? IPM can tell the tale and get the samples and assays under way in 2 days, and in the 4-6 weeks the assays will be done, and the truth will be there. Bill