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 Jagow who wrote (26282)	11/14/1997 8:53:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

DK, I thought BD/Bateman picked the lab. You know, a President's Message might be just the thing to deal with some of the confusion that is running rampant right now Regards, Otter

To: Bob Jagow who wrote (26282)	11/15/1997
From: Lew Green	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35569

Auric is a refiner, not a registered lab and does not do mass commercial assays. They have a small lab for custom assays/R+D/metalurgical work. They are definately in Salt Lake City Utah, and _not_ the lab reffered to. I belive the lab IPM PR refers to would be on par with LaDoux or Hazen or such -- a mainstream commercial registered assay lab. Shouldn't be that many I bet. I assume IPM wanted a respected AZ lab due to the legal battle w/azdomm Just skimming the thread so far and here are some off the top responces: Looks to me like "Trader Kim" got caught long and is having to make lemmonade out of todays lemmons -- but I will also admit she's doing a great job -- most of her points are logicical and on the mark IMO. The financing is one of the bright parts of the PR -- someone is willing to put up 10 million on _this_ news. Per Brads post there is nothing wrong with regular Reg S, and this finaincing is _NOT_ the bad kind of convertibe reg S. People get a grip and _think_! (I'm rounding off here but according to this parnoid fantasy they are going to short almost a million shares on Monday and then cover converting later at 125% of $5? Not logical, nor relevant, the financing is designed to be protective and minimize dillution. It is a _plus_, and there is enough dissapointment to get over in the PR without running this good part down. My biggest dissapointment is _no numbers_ on the bulk samples Bateman said "confirmed au and pt." -- What the heck were they? If they had been negligible -- It is not likely IMO for an outfit like Bateman to cloak marginal numbers with a statement like this, and conversely I have the irritating suspicion those might have been closer to the kind of numbers there were expectations for. Zeev, it is obvious Bateman must agree with you and Martin Hay that the "old gpgi-style recovery process" was too expensive -- or perhaps just too inconsistant (Martin Hay said _this_ in his report -- and even called it something less than a recovery process)... I assumed they were going to stream-line it toward striping concentrates right out of the pregnant leach eventually. In any event, fine, kudos, but Zeev IMO you are way, way off base with your market/institution conspiracy fantasies and they are mathmatically impossible. When Cap Gaurdian Reports next, I think you find them _higher_. People were telling us how much lower Midas was, and low and behold the reporting finally came confirming: Higher and we all know they have more in the American Fund. I've met and spoken to some of the so-called "big boys" or whatever -- and they are "too long to be wrong"... As soon as any of these guys put a decent block on Instanet or Bridge immedietely the MMs pull their bids -- when outfits like this do sellout 500K+ share positions it is on fundamental strengh or deals prenogiated between institutions IMO. From what I see they they don't get some secret handshake on bad news -- and boy you'd see 12 million shares hit the floor if they did -- most of em know each other and got in the stock thru mutual associates or brokers. Cap Guardian cost is $4-6 and has never done what you accuse them of -- it's illegal -- and until you can sight a single past example -- stop accusing them of it. It's ugly and wrong. I hear Cap Gaurdian actually holds IPM in 3 funds, and one sold 100k months ago -- and I believe a different fund there picked em up and they have been net buyers all along and are holding more than ever. The fact is there aren't enough "little guys" in IPM and the market cap too large for that kind of game, nor does it jive with the technicals or market. For Joe H, I've been heavily researching Fire Assays lately and spent some time in front of ovens (not to do w/IPM at all) and let me clarify for you: the problem with most assays on complex ore is consistancy -- the _assay_ itself is inconsistant when run on the splits of the same samples -- it can't repeat the results within an acceptible variance. If a major registered lab, the kind Bateman would approve of has an assay for IPM and signed off on numbers from it -- rest assured _this_ assay is consistant. I've heard they've been working with as many as five and according to the PR they are close on one for Pt. There's been a lot of work on the assay front at IPM, lately, and for years, it is exasperating and grueling, and my past posts have been consistant on what a daunting task it is to get a custom assay installed at any major lab. I have to assume Bateman helped. I beleive assay development work in on-going, improvement is certainly possible, and this is a good first step that also does prove Mason Coggins and Azdomm _wrong_. Back when IPC was delisted, imagine if Kilborn had reported back to the Toronto Exchange .02 to .08. what a different history the company might have had. I gotta go, more later. LG