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: john wickenden who wrote (26889)	11/16/1997 10:32:00 PM
From: Matt C. Austin	Respond to of 35569

John, Nice to see you around here again -- hope you keep posting. Give our regards to the guys at T. Hoare.

To: john wickenden who wrote (26889)	11/16/1997 10:32:00 PM
From: go4it	Respond to of 35569

Thanks John.

To: john wickenden who wrote (26889)	11/16/1997 10:45:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Respond to of 35569

Good to hear from you, John. Was surprised to still see the e-mail uk--thought you said something about being off to a years tour of Pango-Pango :) You could get a nice price tomorrow if you're agile. Bob

To: john wickenden who wrote (26889)	11/16/1997 11:15:00 PM
From: Lew Green	Respond to of 35569

<<I have heard about success with one method which would be great if it came through. It is cheap, very simple and has been recognized for a long time. The numbers I don't know about, or even whether that particular method is still on the cards.>> I'm in the same boat. I heard about it from some of the companies former vendors -- but could never get IPM to confirm so didn't want to post about it -- but now that you've gone first... I heard it was a rarely used but definately recognized, gold leaching method, applied with a slight twist in a C-I-P style circuit. Electrowinning metals on steel wool right out of the soup -- dirt cheap! (see the Mintek home page for info on c-i-p, they invented it -- in South Africa?) <<Perhaps it would do the company a lot of good if they were more open about the both the warts on the one hand and the possibilities on the other.>> Bravo. I couldn't agree more and have been very frustrated with the "no comments" over the last month when I've broached this subject. Damn frustrated. I'll tell you something else, a friend of mine who is very good at getting people on the phone -- a conservative private businessman very long IPM -- got Patrick Glinn, IPM's lead man at Bateman on the phone for two inteviews in the last month. While the Bateman guy tried like hell not to talk about anything "confidential" and kept switching the topic to (paraphrase/2nd hand) "I can tell you these people don't look like a scam to me... etc..." But he did at one point slip up and indicate some similar to the above described leach R+D was underway. But, I can get nada from the company on it. I reached Eli today, and found something else out. The wording about "commercialization" of the recovery process came _from_ Bateman. I think they are onto something. And I think that statement on the bulk runs is fishy. If it had been nominal -- they would have said so -- as they already rejected the method, and it would have been their duty too. If they had been .02 to .08 -- would they not have commented they were similar to the assay or released em? I think they were higher, and Bateman has a better process in mind and didn't want to report on the old one -- but wanted to give IPM something so just said: "Confirmed the presence of au and Pt. on the property"... But that's water under the bridge -- I just wish like you we were hearing more about what is currently _in development_ !!! Good to hear from you again John. Lew