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: Char who wrote (26149)	11/14/1997 4:39:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Those numbers from the process results weren't included. Bateman says there are only 2 samples and that isn't enough to be representative of the resource. Alan

To: Char who wrote (26149)	11/14/1997 4:39:00 PM
From: akpirate	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

It seems strange to me, that after all this time, B.D. is not even mentioned in the press release. Anyone understand why that is? robert

To: Char who wrote (26149)	11/14/1997 4:55:00 PM
From: John D. McClure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi All, Did you guys notice this "fine print" under the table in the release? <<Note: All of the values fall within the previously announced ranges of grade for the Black Rock area, however, the above samples represent only two limited areas.>> If I understand this correctly, the Lab used the modified fire assay to verify the PRESENCE of the metals, while Bateman used the "nominated recovery process" for verification of the yields we saw at the AGM(?). It seems they did not come out with numbers from Bateman because the sample size they used would not give a good representation of the metal amounts in a commercial mode. More tweaking maybe? Being very cautious again? I don't feel so well... *JDM* L(Wr)ong John