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: John Wetterau who wrote (26213)	11/14/1997 6:48:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

John, some good and valid questions. Can't answer them all but I can give you my impressions, FWIW. I don't believe Le and Paul lied to us at the AGM, but I do think they were overly optimistic about what they had achieved and what was yet to be done. Intentionally? I don't know. It's a pressure situation and they may have felt some pressure to put a better spin on things than what was warranted. But I don't think they out and out lied about anything. I had a chance to talk with Paul pretty extensively the following day and my conclusion at the time was that he was too optimistic, but nothing more. What happenned to BD? Can't tell from the PR, but it would appear that Bateman has taken over their role and is pursuing much of what BD was supposed to have been doing. Not all bad, IMO, except that I would like a direct explanation from IPM on the hand-off to Bateman. BD's role seemed to be one of overseeing and observing as opposed to actively doing anything. I think Bateman is more likely to accomplish what we were hoping BD might do. The PR says Bateman will be "..utilizing their resources, contract test work facilities and specialty process engineers." That's a positive. These are just my observations/opinions. I have not had contact with IPM and don't know anything more than what you do, but feel fairly good about these conclusions. FWIW Alan

To: John Wetterau who wrote (26213)	11/14/1997 8:46:00 PM
From: Joe Hartenbower	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

John... easy does it. I think an assay is when you extract from the dirt. You can tweek the process, but not the dirt. Recovery is when you tweek the dirt and recover from the tweekee. They have recovered .8. They have assayed .08. Which do you prefer. I hope they figure out how to get a consistent assay that equals the recovery. However, I am one hell of lot more interested in recovery. Joe (holding and buying)