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 (27337)	11/18/1997 9:07:00 AM
From: Bruce McGaughey	Respond to of 35569

John- This is interesting. Thanks for picking up on it. More likely the reporter to whom he made the comments mixed them up. 2.5 g au and 80 g silver were not in the FA results.....it seems likely this was the result of the leach tests. 2.5 g au and 80 g silver equate to 0.083 opt gold and 2.66 opt silver. Looks like we've got more of a silver mine than anything else.

To: john wickenden who wrote (27337)	11/18/1997 9:34:00 AM
From: Walt Holberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

To all: Positive comments on gold price from James Blanchard. This is from a 4-page supplement included with Elaine Garzarelli's latest newsletter: Blanchard (editor of Gold Newsletter for 26 years) says ". . . the information I have just gained is amoung the most important I have ever passed along to clients and subscribers." We all know about the aggressive shorting of gold, but Blanchard says he has learned that short positions are "ten times or more what is reported on the Comex." An even larger short position was created by "thousands of tons of gold borrowed from central bank reserves by bullion banks and sold into the market." Much of the gold is sold simply as short-sale speculation, which they are required to pay back at some point. If the price rises they must buy. Now here it gets interesting. "Until a few days ago, every player in the market believed the the cumulative amount of gold loaned by central banks was between 2500 and 3000 tons," figures reported by Gold Fields Mineral Services, and an amount that would be "manageable" while large. Blanchard says he has just received research from "the world-renowned analyst Frank Veneroso indicating that the borrowed gold is larger . . . much larger . . . than anyone suspects . . . more than 6500 tons . . . and perhaps more than 8000 tons." Just days after the Veneroso research became public knowledge, the gold lease rate soared 81%. "In recent years this has always led to a spike in gold prices." Some of Blanchard's sources are reporting fear of market chaos amoung central bankers. Blanchard says demand is huge, far larger than production, and sales of tons of accelerated gold supply are the only thing keeping the price down. "Somebody is buying all that gold," he says, and demand cannot be met without forward sales. When the lease rate reaches 3% forward sales are seriously curtailed. In 1995 it reached 5% and the price of gold went to $414. The lease rate has recently gone to 4%. This means the market is already tight now, even before the usual year-end rise. He advises increasing holdings now, especially old coins. This can only help IPM through the remander of the year. Regards to all (longs and friends only, not shorts) Walt

To: john wickenden who wrote (27337)	11/18/1997 9:57:00 AM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Perception vs. Reality Note the final part of this G&M report by Martin Hayes ... it's really unfortunate IPM chose to obfuscate their PR with terms like "nominated assay" etc. The Globe and Mail reports in its Tuesday, November 18, edition that International Precious Metals stock fell 39 per cent yesterday after the TSE released test results showing that there was less gold than expected at its Arizona property. A Bloomberg News dispatch to the Globe reports that test results released Friday of samples taken from the property showed 0.06 grams of gold for each tonne, said Martyn Hay, an analyst at T. Hoare & Co. Some analysts were expecting 0.1 grams. Mr Hay, who rates the shares a "speculative buy," said the test results were done by an independent company for the purpose of proving the presence of gold on the property. This year, Arizona mining regulators questioned whether the property would ever produce gold. This month, an Arizona judge said he would issue an injunction against the state's Mines Department, ordering its employees to stop making comments about IPM. Mr Hay said short sellers have taken the company's numbers out of context in an attempt to drive down the stock. (c) Copyright 1997 Canjex Publishing Ltd. canada-stockwatch.com

To: john wickenden who wrote (27337)	11/18/1997 10:54:00 AM
From: Robert Knight	Respond to of 35569

John, Thanks for your insights.... Will you be a buyer and at what level? At what price do you think the institutions will pick up the pieces? TIA Robert

To: john wickenden who wrote (27337)	11/18/1997 11:27:00 AM
From: Matt C. Austin	Respond to of 35569

John, What people are missing here is that this fire assay is brand new and will probably get increased yields as they work with it. The leaches and other processes that they devised in the past improved with time. Give them some time to work out the bugs.

To: john wickenden who wrote (27337)	11/18/1997 12:16:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Respond to of 35569

John, Someone has probably answered by now but... < need for a positive post > Yep :) Thought 2.5 g au and 80 g silver were in the FA results: 0.08 opt Au and 2.77 opt Ag (not coc). Their Q&A argues that the FA results are correct, but they may have had to rush the test through knowing it was low. Also, the Sept. PR may have anticipated that the FA would give Pt. AD didn't score a 10 IMO, but DJNews may have twisted his comments. < Doyle said the results were "in line with the company's expectations," given the small sample size and the new procedure> does seem to refer to the two [unreported] leach tests, but <market watchers...compared those results to ones released about five months ago which used a "recovery" process... direct comparisons are unfair> doesn't support that interpretation. Keep us filled in on the 'new method'--we need one badly :) Bob