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: ddl who wrote (28508)	11/26/1997 2:56:00 PM
From: Bear Down	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

One more question..... Why pay $$ 27,000,000 for .03 opt.???

To: ddl who wrote (28508)	11/26/1997 5:49:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi Denis, <<Charles...after black Fridays announcement of .04 OPT, do you really beleive IPM will announce better than that without a whole new process / fire assay proceedure? >> Yes I do. It very well could come out that this may be representative of the average but there will be higher numbers and there will be lower numbers IMO. If you look at the numbers from the old leach process that IPM had for each of the holes you will notice that there is considerable variation in the numbers from point to point. Everyone including myself saw that press release and basically said HOLY SH** with little or no regard toward the fact that these were fire assay #'s. Will an economical leach process be able to extract higher #'s ? I don't know but everyone seems to have written off the possibility without realizing that Bateman cracked the mineralization code in <2 months to provide an repeatable and now industry recognized FA. <<Do you really beleive the FAQ where IPM says they got .04 OPT because the samples came from low grade areas? >> Not enough information to believe anything in either direction IMO thus the term .... speculative stock <<They say .04 OPT is verified and supported by the 2,100 leach assay results of 1996. How can the Co. knowing those results never varied by more than 10-15% now say there are low grade spots which now they imply appear to vary by .037/.35 = 1,000 percent?>> I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. The company never made this statement to me. This statement could very well be true in both cases. The numbers 0.037 is what a FA provided which tells me that these numbers may be representative to what can be extracted economically without further process working. The increased numbers may be representative to what is actually in the dirt but can only be achieved at the present time through additional, non-commercial processes. <<IPM has a few orders of bussiness to take of right now. 1) arrange financing or dissapear. 2) Remove Lee Furlong and rebuilt investor confidence 3) Explain what hell happened, in lawman's terms and where and what they are going to do.>> 1) arrange financing 2) rebuild investor confidence 3) Agree with the stipulation that no time lines are given.