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: Daniel M. Whipple who wrote (26413)	11/15/1997 11:19:00 AM
From: unregmarket	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35569

IPMers: After reading the 300 messages since 4:00 Friday, I have the following observations in summary: (1) The IPM/Bateman PR/sample report was intended to show recoverable gold and metals, and it did. (2) The Bateman report did not intend to report on the recovery factor of IPM's BRX land, and it did not. (3) The suspicion of many thread posters over the past 3 to 4 months re: BD's failure to respond was verified in this PR by the exclusion of any refernces to BD ... would we rather have BD or Bateman? Bateman, of course. (4) Lyco was never announced by IPM as having a stake in this particular PR, and they did not. Perhaps something in the future that specifically addresses their activities. (5) COC, deemed extremely important by all who have written, was maintained, and do you really think that Bateman would persist just to gain checks for engineering work? Hell, no - they have a stake in this mine that will prove a profitable venture for them. Whether they assess their projects on a 2-year return, 5-year, or other, I do not know. But they have the right #s to proceed which speaks volumes. (6) The recovery process is determined, but it isn't the fire assay! IPM/Bateman are not still looking for which process, they just will not disclose it, as it is proprietary. Smart move. (7) Management may have erred in reporting an average .04 oz/ton when people wanted to see 0.20 oz/ton, but the figures are apples and oranges. Who is to say that Bateman won't recover 0.20 or higher - noone can say that they will not. They obviously are not going forward based on 0.04. I would submit that the 0.2 is more like it. (8) People were screaming for info, and they got it. IPM management may have thought that their educated shareholdres would be able to see that fire assay proved the gold to the "old schoolers", but the "new" process, that which yields much greater concentrations of product, is the one that will be used in production. (9) EChatterbox, Starving Cat, and Grasso- the - Magnificent will stay around because they're having fun. Good for them. Do you think the Midas Fund gives a shit about 3 or more goons claiming that the stock will tank to 1.8/share ... Good Luck this weekend, I'm as surprised as all of you, but IPM was not going to be cranking out goldbars by the new year no matter what yesterday's report said. Thank you - Rick M.

To: Daniel M. Whipple who wrote (26413)	11/15/1997 12:22:00 PM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Respond to of 35569

There's NO damage control to be done! Ask yourself this ... If these assayed amounts are tantamount to the recovery and by some accounts, negligible at best ... Why are they going through with the additional 2100 re-assays? So they can further prove what they don't have? ROFL I think not! The only reason to re-assay the 2100 samples is to achieve a resource calculation. Ultimately there will be an extrapolation table built ... X amount of "standard fire assay" results = Y amount of recoverable metals. When that extrapolation table is built and a direct linkage correlation established ... they can continually upgrade the recovery process and subsequently and easily provide an updated resource calculation! If this is damage control ... BRING IT ON!!