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: Matt C. Austin who wrote (26519)	11/15/1997 6:49:00 PM
From: GOLDIGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi Matt, just that the process needs work or that a new process needs to be devised. How many months/years you think that will take. GOLDIGER.

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (26519)	11/15/1997 6:57:00 PM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 35569

I am confused........... If the recovery process proves better grades than the fire assay, why not just go pick up a few hundred tons, recover what you find, and report it. For verification you could have an independant consultant follow chain of custody from start to finish. This seems like it would be alot cheaper and more productive than all this BS we've been seeing. Sure would go along way towards proving to me that there is something worth looking at. Yes it might be a little expensive but if what they say is there is actually there, some of the costs would be recovered and ALL the naysayers would be silenced. And investors would be lining up. Afterall isn't that what the eventual production would entail. So basically what I am saying is do a small scale production model to prove your ass etts. Afterall soon they will have 10,000,000 dollars, even if it seems to be from a "lone shark". Mmmmmm time for more promotion!!!!! money well spent!!!!!!!

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (26519)	11/15/1997 7:03:00 PM
From: HungryLion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

More lies. All that is certain is, a. Presence of metal Whatever that means in the final chapter remains to be seen. Clearly, Behre dolbear has been no help since dec 95 and Lyco is a complete mystery. Turn the clock back two years, replace Behre Dolbear with Bateman, and wait for IPM to resurrect Frank Stauffer from the dead. HL

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (26519)	11/15/1997 7:03:00 PM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Respond to of 35569

IMO ... and I'm NOT an assayist ... If ANY assay procedure can at ANY point produce measurable results of X opt on UNTAMPERED ore ... then the metal is present! Finding an assay procedure that consistently produces X is by and large an academic endeavor which ... for understandable reasons ... the mining investment community insists upon. It's unfortunate that some here want to scoff at the expertise, credentials and dedication of a billion dollar engineering company that are being brought to bear on Black Rock.

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (26519)	11/15/1997 7:11:00 PM
From: BeanCounter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Wow! The new fire assay is another dramatic breakthrough for the IPM scientific team. If the new breakthrough is anything like the past breakthroughs I should cover.

To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (26519)	11/15/1997 10:26:00 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Matt, << They announced a fire assay after the the AGM that read .1+. After a lot of testing, it proved unreliable. >> What is your comment on the statement made by IPM on June 24th. "Additionally, IPM is delighted to announce that it has received the results of a standard fire assay performed by AuRIC on head grade samples of Black Rock material. These samples were excavated from a depth of between 16 to 24 feet from three separate holes approximately 500 meters from the holes on which the above recovery results have been announced. The assay of the same samples was done at least two times to confirm consistency and repeatability of results. " << The extraction process with the .25 numbers appears to have the same problems. It doesn't give reliable and repeatable numbers..>> Can you also comment on the statements below ? February 4th 97: "The test program reported on December 19, 1996 has successfully progressed from the 150 gram bench phase through the 10 and 22 kilogram batch phase, and now moves to the bulk test pilot plant. The assay returns from these phases indicate no degradation of recovery from previously announced results of 0.25+ oz/ton gold. As a result of the consistency of gold recoveries, IPM has moved the test program forward on schedule to bulk samples of approximately 250 to 500 kilograms." February 13th 97: "In its weekly summary to IPM the lab also reported a very favorable outcome on the final mid-sized samples of 30 kilograms, achieving 0.25+ oz/ton gold recovery, the same as the 150 gram bench scale tests. " March 11, 1997 -- "International Precious Metals Corporation (IPM) announced today that the independent research facility conducting its precious metals recovery program has reported that assays from bulk sample sizes of 250 kilograms show no degradation of gold recovery." They have work for months with this recovery process, and confirm many times no degradation. How do you reach your conclusion that the process finally..."...appears to have the same problems. It doesn't give reliable and repeatable numbers..." CC