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: knight who wrote (27883)	11/20/1997 8:10:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Actually most companies won't state which lab they use. I note that a few are taking pains to mention when Chemex, Bondar Clegg or someone reputable is used nowadays, post Bre-X-Delgratia. For the life of me I cannot understand why a lab WOULDN'T want their name used. Mountain States is not on of the big ones Canadian companies use. Canadian echanges will not allow any foreign labs be used now without check assays at Canadian Labs. There is simply too many garbage labs out there. I know of only five well known and reputable labs in the Whole United States. I am sure there are more but not by reputation that has got this far. Anything from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada is suspect. I the 1950's there were at least 20 phony assay labs operating in the Phoenix area alone. Everyone claimed special methods to find gold and yes, desert sand was a specialty of some. The real question is why don't the entrepreneurs who claim these special ores enter into a patent agreement with a reputable house and keep everything at arms length? I am sure if the assays come out the house would go along with it. Why wouldn't they? The money has to end up in their pocket if they co-operate. -------------------------------------------------------