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: Furry Otter who wrote (27072)	11/17/1997 10:24:00 AM
From: J.L.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Furry: I was just thinking that we are only 1/2 point below the low of a few weeks ago when we hit...what 3 7/8 before the rally. Big deal!! This did provide the shorts some of the volume that they require to cover, but I don't think it is even close to being enough. those of you who were/are short and were able to cover...good for you. The base has been put in, the big question is will it be re-tested. I doubt it. These bargain basement prices will probably not hold for very long. Caution: some of the things I write today will be complete rationalization of the circumstance that we are in collectivly. Regards, Jeff L.

To: Furry Otter who wrote (27072)	11/17/1997 10:31:00 AM
From: Proton	Respond to of 35569

Re: Fair Price Given this, anybody think low 3s is a fair price? Mr. Market does! :-) I see two factors working against the price here. First, the expectation game. These numbers are well below what we had seen in the past. This is all painfully familiar to anyone who follows earnings reports. The second factor is the issue of economic extraction. Given the numbers in last Friday's press release, somebody is concluding that we have $20-40 of goodies per ton. Traditionally, miners figure we can get maybe 80% of that out. Someone did the math -- based on assumptions with which both you and I -- and decided the stock was worth 60% of what it was on Friday. [edit] I see that Ron S. and Claude C. are focusing on the matter of economic extraction. It also has become the new fall-back position for the bears. We have gone from "It can't happen" to "Well, there's lots of gold in seawater, too." Shorts would do well to cover here, just as we would have been wise to sell at $11 or so (never mind the spike to $14), if for no reason than "you can't go broke taking a profit." I wonder what the true volume is here. That is, how much of this is trading by the MM on their own behalf (where one share of volume is really one share of volume) and how much is buyer -> MM -> seller (where two shares of volume is really only one share traded). We've seen a pretty smart rally from the lows already (appx. 5/8). I'm wondering if the cat made any noise when it bounced? Pý

To: Furry Otter who wrote (27072)	11/17/1997 11:44:00 AM
From: TrueScouse	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

<< anybody think low 3s is a fair price? >> I think it's a very good price! The volume is much higher than a "normal" day, but it still represents only about 300,000 shares changing hands so far today. I still think that the float is considerably bigger than the 4 million or so which has been quoted here recently, so under the circumstances this is _not_ a lot of shares. The large majority of investors are holding. This is my first post since Friday's PR. I've been trying to assess what I think of the news. Overall I have to say that it is more positive than negative. Sure, I was disappointed when I saw the initial figures, but the key thing in the PR is the 3rd party confirmation of an assay process. The average gold grade of the COC samples is 0.037 opt, and the average silver grade determined for those COC samples is 1.1 opt (higher if you include the non-COC samples). This is a combined grade of 0.055 Au equivalent. When I look back through my notes of the past couple of years, this doesn't look so bad. For example, in July 1996 I posted the following (on Compuserve): On April 17th (1996), IPM reported on "all 121 drill holes, consisting of assays and check assays for precious metals recovered into a chloride leach from over 2,400 contiguous samples". These results relate to 1 sq. km. drilled to a depth of 30 metres (100 feet) -- calculated to be 50 million tons of sediment. The average of all samples was 0.046 oz/ton Au and 0.090 oz/ton PGE's. Therefore, using a chloride leach technique, the samples indicated an average of 0.136 oz/ton of precious metals over 50 million tons -- or a total of 6.8 million ounces of precious metals. This, to me, is the starting point for any estimates of IPM's value. The 6.8 million oz was obtained with a comprehensive drilling program supervised by BD, is recoverable by straightforward leaching, and all the data has been posted in the public domain (on IPM's WebSite). The figures which we now have for gold are not much different from the figure above -- slightly higher actually if you include the silver equivalent. The difference is that we now have a confirmed fire assay and at that time we didn't. In terms of the PGE's, we have no further data, but we do have third party confirmation that they exist, and all previous information has pointed to there being at least as much PGE's as gold in the dirt. So I still think that this is a valid starting point to estimate the potential value of IPM's shares. Following a similar line of thinking to my July 1996 post, assuming 0.055 opt Au and the same amount of Au equivalent for the PGE's (rather than twice as much as the gold), we get 0.11 opt. Applying this to 50 m.tons gives 5.5 million oz of Au equivalent on the 1st sq.km. to 100 feet depth. Assuming $300 per ounce gold price, 90% maximum ownership by IPM, and only 10% of the value of this deposit flowing to the bottom line (rather than 15% which I had assumed before), then a "fair value" for this would be $148.5 million. At 21 million shares, this would be worth about $7 per share. So IMO the low 3's is a very fair price! I know that we do not yet have a reserve and that we do not yet have confirmation of the platinum values. But at this point I am comfortable with this as a basic assessment of the "value" of IPM's shares. The market may see it differently of course <g>. But my figures are based on "only" the 1st sq.km. to 100 feet depth, Au figures no higher than reported 18 months ago and Pt only half those values, and only 10% of the market price of this deposit ending up as asset value. As I've said _many_ times, the risk of ownership of IPM is 100%, but IMO there is still the possibility of a huge return, provided that: - the assaying of the 2400 drill samples confirms the previous figures - the PGE values are confirmed - an economical recovery process is developed. If, in addition, it is proven that the recovery levels are considerably higher than the fire assay results (and I recognise that this would be very unusual), then this would only add to the potential. But I am still basing my case on confirming "the basics". I very much wish that IPM had not raised expectations by reporting the recovery figues at the AGM. If not, IMO the current PR would be seen to be very positive. Regards to all, Howy