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: unregmarket who wrote (26419)	11/15/1997 11:29:00 AM
From: Ron	Respond to of 35569

Rick...very good post..Good reality check for the folks prone to panic. Ron W

To: unregmarket who wrote (26419)	11/15/1997 11:51:00 AM
From: Rock Doctor	Respond to of 35569

Trackman: great summary, I've read 200-odd posts, I agree with you: I've been thinking back to what I think we DO know, just to sort this whole thing out in my head (apologies for repeating what others have already posted): - Bateman is 1st class, many of us have stressed the importance of having them involved - IMO, they wouldn't be involved if they didn't believe the PMs were there and the process would ultimately be economic - IPM now has COC on a reproducible fire assay - this should not be under-estimated (I repeat) in this market, especially given BXM, DELGF, etc - the COC/fire assay seems to be one of those 'necessary hurdles' that a company just has to get done and get out of the way - IPM/Bateman has been able to recover substantially more than 0.04 from the BR dirt This leaves me with one key question: - what exactly will IPM say about their RECOVERY process, and when? They must know that this is what many shareholders were expecting (perhaps we were wrong to expect this, but nevertheless, this is what our perception was) - do they feel the need to issue some further clarification now, or are they confident that the big players know the 'real story' (hence they will say nothing more at this time and simply proceed with their plan)? I guess Mr Market will tell us what he thinks of it all soon enough - Monday should be very interesting <GGG> Anyhow, I'm staying 'long' - this seems to be the operative word for me with this investment, stay long, long term, longing for some repeatable and economic high oz/ton recovery numbers ... Rock

To: unregmarket who wrote (26419)	11/15/1997 12:36:00 PM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Respond to of 35569

In light of Bre-X ... and the BILLION dollar litigations that Kilbourne Engineering finds themselves in ... Don't you know that every mining engineering company in the world took notice and became arch-conservatives in anything they sign off on? You bet!! And if anyone thinks for a minute that Bateman is going to sacrifice itself at the altar of greed for a few paltry consulting dollars they may gain by backing a scam mining operation in BFE ... think again! >>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.<< Management did NOT err on anything ... they have simply reported the numbers provided them by their independent CoC consultant. Good post, trackman!

To: unregmarket who wrote (26419)	11/15/1997 4:12:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 35569

And that's what is good about the learning at an engineering university with over 20,000 students, I guess, when we went there...the dialog and the dialectic process:<<...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....>> Damn straight talking, Ol'Rickazip, Chucazip(Some Bounce In This Rubber Bowl!) but TTMA!!! Chucau Chucptzip