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: Eric Tai who wrote (26755)	11/16/1997 4:20:00 PM
From: Proton	Respond to of 35569

Re: Back to Crabbing about Investor Information! At the very least, the company should make this very clear that this is a propriety Auric procedure and when they decided not to buy it, should let the investors know about it. Then the investors won't be caught in surprise to find out that actually the FA today is not the same one as they use in Jun 24 and thus the results might differ a lot. Wholeheartedly agree. There is much we don't know about IPM's vendor and consultant relations. Even if IPM withheld these developments for the good of the shareholder, we appear to be facing the situation in the old Fram oil filter commercials: "You can pay Mr. Market now, or you can pay him later." Pý

To: Eric Tai who wrote (26755)	11/16/1997 9:12:00 PM
From: Ron Struthers	Respond to of 35569

<<However, if IPMCF knew at that time that Auric was going to charge them big bucks for the FA procedure, maybe they should not even publish the results of the Auric FA >> Eric, basically, I believe IPM got cornered. I believe Bateman's fire assay works well. The reason for the variance is the same sample was not assayed. If we had any luck at all we could have got a higher number but the same circumstance would remain. It would not be representative In order for Bateman to do a COC they took samples from a location unknown to IPM until after the fact Ron