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: Furry Otter who wrote (26161)	11/14/1997 6:41:00 PM
From: Joe Hartenbower	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35569

Furry... I'll take it a step further, I think may be quite good. Think about it (and remember, all the shorts are going to do everything possible to get us to sell on Monday AM - they have already started and they are obviously good at it): 1. IPM confirmed an assay process for gold... that may not take the stock to the moon but it had to be done and they are well on their way to a mine that could be bigger then Ariz. Star! They said "assay" not "recovery". Recovery has been significantly more - .25(?)at the AGM. They didn't say these few trenches and holes were representative. In fact, they say they are very limited or not representative. 2. The late-to-arrive Bateman Engineering (excellent rep) says there is Gold and Platinum. They RECOVERED it, not assayed it. In other words, they did a COC recovery. For whatever reason they aren't ready to announce how much. However, they are willing to hook their reputation and future to the success of getting Platnum and Gold out of Black Rock. All along I have heard that given a little time, they can come up with a much better recovery process. 3. Next, Doyle writes that he is finalizing $10,000,000 using a convertable note tied to 125% of IPM'S SHARE MARKET PRICE. That makes me think he is pretty sure of the success of IPM and so are others. IPM and Omega are extending the time on the payment of the money for the property. That's positive. The whole thing begins to sound like a win-win deal. 4. Bateman is going to stay and do the development program for IPM. Do you think they are worried? Do you think all this is negative? Obviously there is a lot to do but now they are going to be doing things that will generate a flow of news. I think the real problem is IPM didn't come out with a report based on our perception as to what it would take for the stock to rocket, short squeeze, for Alize to get to the moon, etc. I realize that I may be wrong. I am an investor, not a geology/mining analysist. I think it is quite possible that by the end of this weekend or the first of next week, we will hear from the pros that this was a very good report. Furry, your frind has already said that. I've already heard people say that this report is "terrible". Really, how do you know? I'm not sure I know. I'm really glad it came out on a Friday. I hope that we will get an enormous amount of quality information over the weekend. I do know one thing. I know who the shorters are. I know that they will do or say anything to get people to dump their stock. I have already started my plan of absolutely not reading even one of their messages. Next, if someone is panicking, I'm not going to finish theres. I need knowledge, not information. I need objectivity, not emotion. Think about this. If it is a very good report, the institutions and the big guys will stay and maybe even buy. The only sellers will then be the uneducated investors and the ones who are panicing. If the institutions and big boys sell, the stock will tube. I don't think they will. In fact, they may buy. I plan to follow the lead of the big guys rather than the shorters. Joe Hartenbower

To: Furry Otter who wrote (26161)	11/14/1997 7:18:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Respond to of 35569

Congratulations on your strong stomach, Furry :) I agree somewhat with your point #2 in that the "average 0.046 Au from COC chloride-leach samples" reported in the '96 10-K had some weasel words re COC (although it was claimed to be in the data filed with AZ authorities). Re #3, I have yet to check whether data for these holes was previously reported. Re the small print, "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.", I previously commented that it looked like lawyer-talk, but would be very happy to find their problem only bad geographical luck :) My best hope is that the heavy hitter is on a roll. Regards, Bob