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: payman emamian who wrote (26561)	11/15/1997 9:52:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi Payman, I don't think those numbers are too aggressive because I expect the extraction numbers are larger. The biggest problem with the thread right now (which was the case with myself as well yesterday is the fact that we didn't see in black and white what we had anticipated because they had fire assay numbers not extraction numbers. This is exactly what brought me back to reality. There are many companies out there where the extraction numbers are different then the assay numbers that is why there has been such a controversy over the last few years over acceptable ways to assay dirt. The industry wanted fire assay numbers from IPM so IPM gave them fire assay numbers. The share holders want recovery numbers. We will get them in due time when a process has been chosen. I can't even read these posts as fast as they are being put up. I think everyone should step back and calm down for a few minutes and maybe you will start to see what I have. regards, Chuck

To: payman emamian who wrote (26561)	11/15/1997 10:43:00 PM
From: Ben & Ally Maddox	Respond to of 35569

>>that's a matket cap of $150 million and that's ok by me.<< Thank you Payman, for those figures. I had to put them to the test first, on my spreadsheet, and they all worked out!!! So that makes it look a whole lot better - WHEW!! - It just might take a jump yet. Ally 8^D

To: payman emamian who wrote (26561)	11/15/1997 11:02:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 35569

Payman, if it is indeed so, why has the market not given IPMCF that capitalization before when BD gave it a stamp of approval on 30% more (.046 oz/ton)? Maybe the ore is complex, and may the fine grinding and hot leaching followed by smelting and electrowinning are necessary, then my friend, I am afraid theat $150/ton will not go a long way as far as costs and depreciation are concerned. The market is apparently slightly efficient. BY the way, it might also be a good idea for capitalization purpose to take only about 55% of the profit. The reveuer wants its share <VBG>, so your $150 MM comes down to $80 MM which is a little lower than the close on Fiday (capitallization without the new shares and shares owed to Phoenix) was north of $100 MM on the close. Zeev