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: Zeev Hed who wrote (26706)	11/16/1997 2:14:00 PM
From: Matt C. Austin	Respond to of 35569

Zeev, Thank you -- for me, this says it all: >> I am not even buying on a dip to 3.5.>>>>

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (26706)	11/16/1997 3:17:00 PM
From: reg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Buy, buy ,Buy! You have assays from 2 twenty kg samples of .036 gold Sure justifies a market cap of 100 million plus after years of spending millions and proving nothing close to their original claims.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (26706)	11/16/1997 3:44:00 PM
From: Ron Struthers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

<<I see no FACTUAL base for assuming that we will get an average of .1 to .15 oz/ton as you propose.>> Zeev you are correct there is no factual information available to support this yet. We have to wait for assays. The 0.10 to 0.15 is just my speculation IPM has tested old samples with the new fire assay. I have been told there is improved results. <<The main issue of extraction cost is wide open and not even close to resolution. So far, unfortunately, I see a repeat of the fateful 450 tons bulk sample of last year. >> Again Bateman will have to confirm an economical extraction process. They seem optimistic. The difference between now and last year is we had ZERO last year and there was not near the Institutional involvement of the stock. The price action will be in their hands and the shorts Ron