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: Karl Zetmeir who wrote (26216)	11/14/1997 6:40:00 PM
From: Joe Staniszewski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

BTW, whatever happened to the material that was sent to the refiners a long time ago?

To: Karl Zetmeir who wrote (26216)	11/14/1997 6:44:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<<Taking a truly random sample for statistical analysis within a desired coefficient of error...requires a much smaller number of samples then you might imagine..>> I agree, but I do not necessarily think this is what IPM or Bateman was doing. If they took "100," where were they from? The same "two limited areas?" Different areas? At what depths? Were they near prior IPM sampling? IPM does not say, which makes me think they are not saying these 8 samples are representative of anything, other than fact there is gold on the property. The fine print under the table confirms this, IMO. I agree with you that the non COC samples showing the same approx. values as the COC indicates that they are not salting. This should stop that kind of talk. Why do you think the fire assays used in the PR were different than the assays referred to at the AGM? I get the impression they were the same. Regards, Otter