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: Brander who wrote (26357)	11/15/1997 12:54:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Brad, I am not a happy camper as I sit here reading and re-reading the press release. I think alot of retail investors will panick Monday morning and I think that it is pretty damn low of the company to put this kind of a release out and I can't figure out why they did. There is one paragraph that keeps jumping out at me and that is Bateman Engineering Inc.,...... However, the process utilized will most likely not be used for commercial development of the project....... These two samples of 20 lbs. each were collected and tested under chain of custody surveillance of the independent consultants. Bateman has indicated that this testing should not be used for the purpose of calculating a resource. I think this is refering to the leach process. I think they may have achieved the numbers that the company has been putting out and I think Bateman (just like Martin Hay) has enough experience to recognize that they were using was not going to be economical to extract the metals. So I am going to hypothesize that Bateman told IPM that they didn't want these numbers in the report as it would have created a false impression and essentially super inflated the stock price (not that I would have minded). I'm thinking that Bateman has no interest in playing stock pricing games. If this was the case then any feasibility study that was performed would have come back as the mine is not feasible. If they are going to do a feasibility then they are going to have to know what the extraction method that is going to be economical is or at least have alternatives. They have proven that the gold is there and they will calculate a resource using the approved fire assay and at this point it is a pure technology play. Short term - I apologize for being as bullish as I was but I did believe. Chuck

To: Brander who wrote (26357)	11/15/1997 3:05:00 AM
From: Lew Green	Respond to of 35569

Brad I really liked your disclosure statement, and I had trouble (perhaps like others) figuring where you are coming from -- I'd have never guessed long. You are wrong about the financing though. It is _not_ the bad kind. Of course it is dillution -- but NO JR. MINER raises any $ without dillution and we've been expecting _that_ all along. I think you are dreaming if you think any JR or small cap/high risk stock can raise millions without dillution. This financing is _not_ the dreaded covertible/short it first type you are refering to and I don't know it yet but bet the pedigree of the $ turns out to be strong. IPM has never done that convertible Reg S kind of financing and never will IMO. Regular RegS is how IPM has done _all_ it's previous financing and it's always been pre-disclosed and never a problem. I would submit that a majority of Jr's raise their $ this way, and doubt you could invest in hardly any if you looked for only ones that didn't. I think you will find historically it is the financing of first resort, not last resort of most Jr miners. These co's just don't do the perspecutus thing -- atleast till they grow out of Jr.'s. I am honestly happy we've got $ in the bank -- the last 10Q showed IPMs til headed to dry and that is a relief -- and this is serious $ at that 10 million -- which represents staying power and will I assume pay for Bateman who I pray will be worth it in the end. However, I am still pissed that regardless of how much Bateman didn't like the old process or think it was unsuitable for calculating reserves -- that they didn't give us the damn numbers on the bulk batches they say confirm au/pt. I'm dissapointed about several other things -- I'm not gonna hide my head in the sand, and I'm not gonna change. I've never taken bows at past kudo's cause I'm not in it for that -- and the guy sending me the anonymous hate mail can give it up because I am not going to buy a guilt trip either. I have aggressively battled here what I believe was short misinformation and terror campaigns on the thread. I have not been a cheerleader, not joined the happy talk, never thrown huge numbers around and often reminded people of the high risk of this and all Jrs and to stay more down to earth. I'm gonna stay the same, good or bad news, win or loose. Okay? Now, I _really_ like the financing and think it is a good thing. I most liked getting a fire assay -- _FINALLY_ -- any fire assay even if the numbers aren't sexy -- is an important step out of the bush leagues. Now we have to see the assay applied to a whole lot of the property -- and see if they can get one for Pt/pd... And again I really, really admired and respected your disclosure post -- I may be mistaken but I thought it was you who sent me a nasty e-mail a while back about my disclosure part on Short Report I, and so you know, I put solely it for people to get a feel on where I'm coming from, and if I'm for real -- same as yours, which I think is for real also. Lew Green