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: Tim Hall who wrote (24794)	11/7/1997 12:54:00 PM
From: Matt C. Austin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

The BD report (short form) is posted on the web-site. I have a full copy of the Dec. '95 report from BD to IPM. It says nothing of the sort. I think C L posted the report verbatim many months back in this thread. The AZ DMMR has the full copy also. I am not going to spend any time going back and searching for it. I might type it up myself later today if I get time.

To: Tim Hall who wrote (24794)	11/7/1997 12:56:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	Respond to of 35569

<<I doubt if I would hire Behre Dolbear on a professional consulting basis.>> I doubt they would be interested in a kitty litter mine. Alan

To: Tim Hall who wrote (24794)	11/7/1997 1:41:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

"After reviewing the reports for content and technical expertise I doubt if I would hire Behre Dolbear on a professional consulting basis." I'm sure that there is big disappointment at BD from that comment. I had heard the were just itching to get into the kitty litter consulting business.

To: Tim Hall who wrote (24794)	11/7/1997 3:27:00 PM
From: Matt C. Austin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Apparently the report you have is not the Dec 15,1995 report. In 1994 there was a report about separation by mechanical methods. That data is less than useless as the gravimetric methods never did work out. That report had some samples that B D purposely salted, the report is about the DCRS system and it didn't work. Here's BD's comments in Dec. 1995: ----------------------------------------------------- "Behre Dolbear has been engaged in an ongoing program to aid IPM in a precious metals evaluation of the BRX project. On site observation of the drilling program, including the collection, handling, and security of the samples was completed. Additionally, Behre Dolbear observed and monitored IPM's sample preparation laboratory to verify that sample preparation and treatment procedures consistently followed previously established accepted methodology. All of the above was subject to close scrutiny and given Behre Dolbears's approval. It is evident that IPM is executing a well-planned program. Behre Dolbear notes no shortcomings in equipment, operating procedures, or security measures in either phase of their program. Both the sample preparation and laboratory personnel are well trained and supervised. The analytical results of approximately 103 samples submitted to two independent and industry-recognized laboratories were made available to Behre Dolbear. On the basis of the currently available analyses, it is concluded that the IPM-developed leaching procedure is extracting measurable amounts of gold from BRX material. This has been verified by correlation of the analytical results from the two independent laboratories. Behre Dolbear noted with interest that other precious metals values, including PGE's were reported by the laboratories. Behre Dolbear, however, has not evaluated the significance of these other precious metal values and recommends further study on the part of International Precious Metals Corporation." - Behre Dolbear & Co. ,Inc.

To: Tim Hall who wrote (24794)	11/8/1997 12:45:00 AM
From: Theo	Respond to of 35569

THALL, <<It is interesting to note that the tests in which BD confirmed the .04 oz per ton, they were unable to find fine gold which theypurposely salted in several of the samples as checks.>> So let me see if I can get this right. They salted the samples, then got .04 oz per ton, but couldn't find the gold they put in?????? If they couldn't find it, how do they know it wasn't the .04 oz per ton? How did they find the OTHER gold? What the hell are you saying??? Theo

To: Tim Hall who wrote (24794)	11/9/1997 4:50:00 PM
From: Lew Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<<I have also read two of the reports prepared for a company I am not supposed to mention by Behre Dolbear.>> Mr. Hall, this effectively is "scaming" on that gag order isn't it? Perhaps you should lead by example in this arena... but in any event, I have noticed a change of attitude in your posts and hope they continue in a general direction of open-minded skepticism -- as oppossed to hypey-alarmist-attacks like some other posts here now. Please also be sensitive to a "piling on" effect that can often be percieved. I would like to see if you will stand true to your extreme skepticism and apply it to Mr. Charters. How do you acess his logic? His mental faculties? Did you know he had a "buy" on PFG on his newsletter while he was trashing it on SI? Did you _read_ his posts about taking over mining in the Western world? About his cartel? Do you find it odd he couldn't graduate mining school till around his 40's? Doesn't he just seem like stock promoter/demoter selling newsletters? Did you notice how _many_ questions he avoids and prevaricates on when he was being debated seriously? If he was a stock would you buy him? Please answer all these and on their _own_ merits sans snappy put downs of other stocks. Frankly, I am challenging your integrity here, daring you to turn your skepticism and intellect on analyzing Mr. Charters and see if it gets the same scrutiny you give elsewhere. Also, since you are playing a bit with your gag order -- okay -- but I'd request you please be precise and sincere on factual IPM data whenever possible. <<It is interesting to note that the tests in which BD confirmed the .04 oz per ton, they were unable to find fine gold which they purposely salted in several of the samples as checks.>> 1. I would prefer the term "spiked" -- isn't that the official one? 2. I don't have time (on a writing job currently)to find my 10K, but I believe you are mistaken on reports. The spikes that dissapeared were I believe on a failed Mercury Amalgam test -- and I believe the results were nil -- not .04. I believe the theory is everything went out with the tailings. IPM as I understanding abandoned this technology immedietely after this fiasco. I've heard rumors BD's personel ran the equipment and flubbed it, but don't know. I also have never received a satisfactory explanation for why the method was not repeated, but must suppose something more promising appeared and the company was on limited resources at the time. 3. The .046 results I think your refer to were 1995 wet assays of a cloride leach. There were I believe no spikes but, I believe a couple blanks, and there are several theories about the "aparent strong correlation". We've been there, done that -- and at this point are not hanging our hats on that 95 report, other than in the most general sense that among many other research clues it tells up there are likely PM's in the desert sands, but they can be a bitch to assay and extract. The other thing the 95 report tells us, and the years after, is the continued presence of BD and that's _strong_ evidence that IPM is not a scam, fraud or salting operation. We have Eldon's 1997 interview with Barnard Guenera to that effect. Some "attacker" here recently posted about the aniversary of BD's contract and that it must be sinister if there is not an immediete PR now on it's renewal. That is a lowbrow, "scammy" innuendo post and really a waste of the threads time. The same assinine post talked of salting, and anyone with a double digit IQ should know there is no consultant contract that would not be breached by, and no confidentiality agreement that covers, hiding deliberate client salting and fraud. BD was there in 95, 96 and 97, and is reporting now. Bateman has joined in, and that is very significant, they are not just another consultant and anyone in mining knows that. All of these and more put the odds strongly against "scam" and the bottom line reads IPM is a sincere and honest effort. You and others may argue it has been an expensive, incompetent or too aggessively promoted effort, and others exactly the opposite. The reality, as always, is probably somewhere in the middle, with the bad luck of Bre-x and delgf magnifying many things out of proportion. IMO many investors can and have done far worse in other Jr. miners -- and none are up against as daunting a challenge as IPM and the DD's have taken on. Lew Green