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: KVASIR who wrote (26154)	11/14/1997 5:57:00 PM
From: Lew Green	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

<<No ghosts in the shadows...The perception of your statement about the lawyers pouring over the release meticously, raised the caution flag for me...>> No, you are wrong, it was normal wording, higher numbers would have been the same situation -- in fact every entity could have been even more careful. What I quoted was told to a major broker with decades of expeience in Jr miners and was not taken as a red flag... I've heard the same thing prior to bullish PRs... One of the key areas IMO must have been quoting Bateman, which if one reads carefully is critical, and possibly the source of much negotiation. It also seems we damn well did get au/pt off the "old" recovery method -- but Bateman would _not let_ IPM use the numbers -- and it also seems _Bateman_ is taking over the recovery work now... This is interesting and I'm still analyzing the PR. I've also played hookey from some paid writing today that's on deadline -- but I'll chime in with my full 2 bits before the weekend is over. At my first glance, short-term this PR looks lousy. While there's been tons of speculation they were having consistancy/scale up trouble with the old recovery method hence the delays, and I'll say it again -- to me if one reads carefully Martin Hay seems to have gotten things fairly right -- there is some good news in this PR, certainly enough to warrant giving Bateman time to work out recovery, but IMO it is not going to be seen because IPM did _not_ clear the air on the old method and all those tests and I am not happy about this and plan to give management an earfull if I get the chance. This is a shame, because this PR's assay info does bust the critical scam cloud, perpetuated by Mason Coggins et al: that there is no au at Black Rock, no Pt either. I believe the average grade of all au mined in the State of Nevada is .017 -- and here's a major ARIZONA lab _fire assaying_ better than that on a smattering of holes. If I read right Bateman reported there "is au _and_ pt." on the property -- and I don't think Bateman is in the business of giving phoney support to situations that are economically hopeless -- I _think_ what happened is Bateman thinks they know better how to handle this material and IPM has basically handed the ball over to them. Lew Green