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: whatitis who wrote (28022)	11/22/1997 2:21:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 35569

Rick: My take on the refusal to release the recovery numbers is this. If they are higher than the fire assay numbers, Bateman refused to be associated with them because they know it is not a "commercial process." Which probably means it is obviously too slow and/or obviously too expensive to ever be used for actual mining. I agree the financing is an important issue. There are still many questions concerning the financing, and I want to see the answers before I would even consider nibbling on this one again. My questions at this point are: are they really going to get ANY financing, and if so, how much and at what terms? The PR and the Q&A's were entirely too sketchy on the details of the financing.

To: whatitis who wrote (28022)	11/22/1997 2:58:00 AM
From: Brander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Another possibility, which I think is more likely, is that Batemnt did not obtain any recovery numbers from a viable (economic) recovery process. If they did, and the results were not reported, this is again withholding significant, material information. This is illegal, and the IPM board of directors could be held accountable, so I doubt it happened. Also, if financing were obtained on significant, material information not made available to the stock holders, I think this would also be illegal. Take the report for what it is; anything else at this point is pure speculation. Brad

To: whatitis who wrote (28022)	11/22/1997 3:20:00 AM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Rick, < Who's idea was it to not release...the recovery tests > My take was 2A => techstocks.com IPM, in their by now normal spin of things, could relate that 'Bateman said the numbers should not be used for resource calculations' and thereby imply that Bateman said not to release them. Don't think Batemann would be truly culpable for "being a party to hiding bad recovery numbers"--it was not Bateman's press release. Do like, since I'm long, "institutions have been briefed...to persuade [them]...to back IPM"; hope to see indications of it soon :-) As to the 'witholding material info' addressed in several posts: -withholding bad info is the cause of nearly all suits and that is all that matters. It's not the authorities that come after companies--it's the trial lawyers who establish damage pursuant to the statute. SageBob

To: whatitis who wrote (28022)	11/22/1997 9:16:00 AM
From: Karl Zetmeir	Respond to of 35569

FWIW ... Article in the Northern Miner ... Nov. 24 ... pg. 14 Seems they actually did a fairly balanced article for once ... pretty accurate portrayal of the latest PR ... Here's at least one publication that should understand the importance of CoC ...

To: whatitis who wrote (28022)	11/22/1997 10:04:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 35569

Rick...I think this is all wishfull thinking... The recovery numbers are not important at all, no matter if they are higher, same or lower. Bateman says they cannot be used in a commercial process. Therefore, the proceedure applied in extracting the metals is faulted from the start and has no bearing on the matter whatsoever....It's a process that was probably used many times over the last 30 years and Batemen KNOWS for fact with their experience, this process cannot be scaled up to a commercial process. Mentioning the numbers would be misleading to the investors who still want to believe, and that could be why they or the exchanges/lawyers did not report them. - denis

To: whatitis who wrote (28022)	11/22/1997 10:56:00 AM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Rick, I know you're trying to help. Maybe the following quote will help your thinking. Le Furlong to CL/Frank/Matt/whazzisname: "Although we have yet to see any recovery information in writing from the consultants, we understand verbally that although low, Au, Pt, and Pd was recovered." Maybe this will help Chucau with his evaluation of the "too good to announce" rumor, as well. Regarding the financing: Why would anyone loan IPM $10MM at a rate below prime? Of course, as of the present, no one has. But if someone should loan them the money, what extra juice do you suppose would have to be part of the financing....considering that IPM has not been able to find a viable recovery process despite burning umpteen million dollars over the course of how many years? But we are trying another 30 processes, aren't we.... The letter also included the following astounding statement -- astounding since we've all been led to expect the SHOWTIME recovery announcement: "The recent 3rd party work by Bateman/BD was designed to again establish that precious metals existed at Black Rock via a selected recovery process this time with chain of custody samples." Apparently IPM had already abandoned the much touted process that yielded 0.25+ Au with no degredation. Apparently IPM thought that the recovery process results signed off by BD back in 1995 needed additional support? Again, "This was not a test of the efficiency of a particular recovery method but to confirm that the 20 June AGM recovery results were true, that Au, Pt and Pd existed at Black Rock." An interesting test of the "truth" of the AGM-announced recovery results; viz., the AGM announcement is to be deemed "true" if ANY Au, Pt and Pd are recovered -- any at all. A more strict test of truth might require recovery of, say, at least 0.50 Au-equivalent. Then we could believe the 0.81 number released at the AGM. Instead we get "low Au, Pt and Pd". Doesn't pass my olfactory purity test! O. H. O. H.