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: Bob Markley who wrote (26225)	11/14/1997 6:58:00 PM
From: Anne Lamb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Yall forgot something..<me too til a minute ago> Naxos put out their COC findings..their gold numbers were .06 and .07.. they did have pt numbers in..and we dont have those in yet.. but they sure didnt plummet..in fact they have been as high as 10.. its not as dire as we fear..lets see what the co. says this weekend.

To: Bob Markley who wrote (26225)	11/14/1997 7:01:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Respond to of 35569

I would feel much worse about this if, for example, BD/Bateman processed and assayed the second half of split cores that IPM had previously announced had assayed at .25 or higher...but that is not what this is. Part of the problem is we may have had an image of a PR that said, "Independent consultants confirm existence of precious metals at BRX exceeding 1 OPT," which was basically the message we got at the AGM. But I do not think this was a verification in the sense that BD was auditing prior samples taken by IPM that resulted in the above statement...they were doing a complete COC, with a limited number of samples, to verify the existence of measurable quantities of gold by ASSAY, and to determine whether IPM's recovery process worked. The first part of the PR answers the first q ("YES"), and the second part of the PR says, "YES" to the second q, but hold on, we are working on something even better. Now we can say THE GOLD IS THERE, and this statement cannot be plausibly challenged. Regards, Otter

To: Bob Markley who wrote (26225)	11/14/1997 7:10:00 PM
From: Graystone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

BD already admitted for the record that gold existed at Blackrock, exactly .04, non-economic.

To: Bob Markley who wrote (26225)	11/14/1997 9:07:00 PM
From: Mark Bartlett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Bob, <<The key with IPM is huge potential tonnage deposit can NOW be delineated with drilling/trenching AND the fire assay. Further the RECOVERY grades could be much higher and easier to obtain. >> I am not sure that the report is as bad as some would believe. It is a significant positive step that COC samples have been obtained and proven to contain gold - in amounts that may be ecomomical _if there is enough of the stuff _and if the recovery process is cheap enough. Those remain the two key _technical issues here .... once they are proven, then of course some of the other realities come to the play, like permitting etc. I honestly do not know if the news will support the stock price, but IPM IMO will still be worth following assuming they can continue to get the necessary capital for their research purposes. And finally FWIW ... I have personally met some of you and know you are good, honest hard working people. Despite the fact I have remained in the shadows for some time, I continued to monitor the story and wished very much the report was more supportive. I am appalled that certain individuals could be so callous in their gloating over this outcome - some of these individuals are truly pathetic. Best to you all, MB