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: kimberley who wrote (28263)	11/24/1997 3:29:00 PM
From: Eastman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

I called on Friday. Would you believe that no one was around, and Eli was in Santa Monica??? What the hell is he doing there? Packing his things for the Caymans? To the moon, East

To: kimberley who wrote (28263)	11/24/1997 3:46:00 PM
From: Bob Markley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Kim, I'am still not seeing any Institution buying, this is just a bit of short covering/bargain hunting. If so, why did the MF not buy higher to protect their investment??? Only two answers come to me, ... either they are writing it off or taking over control. If they were writing it off they would just leave(sell) & we would see huge volumes. Not so here. Re: economics, @ .O37 assuming that it can rival heap leaching in economics, then they most likely have a low grade/high tonnage deposit. The thing here, imo, is the misleading(lies) of management in regards of the recovery grades. That and the high cash burn rate. Majors normally buy known deposits,... so assuming that funds take over the co. it would be to remove the management, to allow for a restructuring & ultimate arbitrage of the co. Just my thoughts & opinions. Best, Bob