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: Anne Lamb who wrote (25077)	11/9/1997 1:44:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

This is prevarication. The samples may have been drilled by Steffen Robinson Kirsten but were not necessarily in THEIR Custody and delivered to a lab that was using other than a biased method with probably biased reagants. This ground has been travelled already with the same consultants in April and platinum was subsequently found in the reagants that the company insisted the lab use. Two independent labs could find no gold or platinum at all in the samples by Naxos method or by by other methods that are used widely in modern platinum assaying. If Ledoux reveived the samples from Johnson Let how do we know that Johnson Lett is not compromised in some way by Naxos' agency? This does not constitute an audit. Delgratia tried the same stuff with their own lab and it appears that some sort of scam is building with the lab that IPM is in confederacy with upon the Black Rock property owned ostensibly by their not-beyond-arms length confederates there. Nothing less than an audit by the SEC with carefuls control and tests and a decision to list or not list based upon that is acceptable. At the very best this is doubtful enterprise with unacceptable risk. At the worst it is as it appears to be an assaying scam of the worst conpiratorial nature that threatens, along with the five previous recent stock exchange debacles in recent years, the sanctity and integrity of the whole public issuance process. It will explode in the faces of all the honest junior explorers and issuers and is a grave risk to them all. IF this "research" is to be conducted it should not be conducted as a stock play with public funds. The public is not knowledgeable enough to be allowed to ingenuously trust these people, who, I might add, are the ones not providing proof. Instead of asking people for "proof" it should be incumbent upon shareholders to ask the company to forthwith prove that the methods and results are INVIOLATE and valid. Without such proof that they should be able to provide I would suggest that the delays mystery and obfuscation are intolerable and not proper process. Since it is public money they should be held accountable in a much more open manner. In 100 years most Canadian and American companies have not seen fit to patent assay processes. The advantage is moot. Most companies have so much interest in processes that they will copy them overseas anyway so there is not much advantage to hiding them if you "own the ground". It would be trivial if IPM and Naxos and GPGI really owned special processes for them to do reconnaissance and sequester an advantageous position before the competition caught on. Are we to believe that 5 independent junior companies caught on to the same high tech advantage and left Rustenberg and Inco without this knowledge? Since a plethora of scam abounds where the absence of science is notable it far more likely that this is a travesty than a "breakthrough". If I approached a company president with some concerns about their assays and he said to me "have the accuser prove it", I think I would be alarmed. It is my money that is on trial, not his integrity. This didn't start yesterday. It has been going on since 1980 and contrary to the TR Hoare report, Inco did NOT find platinum metals in their ore (GPGI). Out of context statements are being used to promote the movie. Where's the beef? EC<:-}