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: Furry Otter who wrote (28533)	11/26/1997 6:30:00 PM
From: kimberley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Furry, <<In May 1996, IPM reported that bulk tests using the November 1996 process had no degradation in recovery. Still no fire assay, however.>> think you mean May 1997... I keep seeing reference to the notion that IPM has now proved they have gold... I for one thought it was already a given that gold was on the property. What has fueled the price rise over the past 12 months was the notion that, even though the ore wasn't amenable to fire assay, the company had a recovery process that was yielding high numbers ( see all pr's since nov. 1996.) What the market has been waiting for these past twelve months was an independent verification of thse numbers. The Nov. 14 PR didn't give that... and it turns out the recovery process is not economic. That, in my opinion, is the biggest problem right now. The market will continue to wait for feasibility... and when it comes, the property can be valued fairly. Short answer, yes apparently those recovery numbers are not valid... not in the sense they arn't true, but if it isn't economic, then you can't use it. The market is probably not going to give IPM much more value until it can either produce an economic recovery process or show higher grades across the property. The 'ugly' of all this is that many investors feel lied to... the company announced a recovery process, but didn't state it wasn't commercial. best, kim

To: Furry Otter who wrote (28533)	11/27/1997 9:42:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 35569

Furry...Please note that the results announced on December 19/96 of the new assay #'s of +-.25 to .29 OPT were the result of an improvement in ASSAYING and not recovery. Because IPM further stated that the new results "ARE BOTH HIGHER AND REPRODUCIBLE" I guess many of us assumed this to be true and correct and all that remained was BD verification. If you remove that fire assay, which Bateman says is not commercial / reproducible, then we're back to the original leach results of the 121 holes which showed and average of .046 OPT. - denis ps: please state the PR date because the 121 holes you refer to were released in April/97 not March and the Assay # were in Dec/96 and not Nov. :-)

To: Furry Otter who wrote (28533)	11/27/1997 1:58:00 PM
From: Bob Markley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<< All intelligent responses are invited >> Furry, After the company (imo)lied to me, until proven otherwise it is a low grade, high tonnage deposit, that is most likely low cost as well (assumption). I'am 'flat' this stock right now(with losses), most out at 3.25, so hope that my opinion can be viewed as unbias. In the meantime I'am going to trade this stock. We all know the AU & PT exist, the question is how much. In my mind it is a placer deposit of low grade mat'l w/ perhaps some higher grade dikes/etc., BUT in light of what the management has done, I MUST assume low grade. Provided the company does not go broke, or taken over, this stock is one to be viewed as a trader only. Best of luck & hope all works out for you. Bob

To: Furry Otter who wrote (28533)	11/27/1997 2:41:00 PM
From: whatitis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi Furry, sorry to be so long in getting back to you. I had to leave to pick up some people at the airport and then we have been spending time with the family. You have some good questions and I don't think any of us have enough facts to answer all of these questions with certainty. I do have my own thoughts and understandings that I will attempt to share with you. You are correct or course that on June 24, 1997, IPM reported that Auric had recovered about .3 opt gold and also had run a fire assay that produced numbers similar to the recovery numbers. However, to everyone's surprise, about the end of Sep/first part of Oct, the Auric assay that had produced such great recovery numbers failed to be consistently repeatable within the required limits when checked by IPM and also failed the same thing when checked by an independent lab. This was a significant set back given the importance that the market places on a confirmed fire assay. A new fire assay had to be quickly developed and confirmed in order to move forward. The results of this new fire assay on the chain of custody samples were released as soon as they were available; however, this hastily developed fire assay, even though confirmed consistently repeatable, does not produce nearly as high numbers as did the defunct Auric assay. Some improvements have already been made with the modified fire assay and it is my opinion that work will continue, in the near term, to improve this fire assay to the maximum extent possible while still remaining confirmable as consistently repeatable. It is in our best interest that they do this before proceeding with assaying all the samples from the first grid. The recovery numbers from the revised Nov 1996 recovery process remain valid. I think it is a mistake to say that the November 1996 recovery process is "not economical". I assume you are saying this because of the statement in the 14 Nov 1997 press release that said: "However, the process utilized will most likely not be used for commercial development of the project." This statement is not as significant to me as it seems to be to a lot of people. In the first place, it does not say that the process is not economical. In the second place, it does not indicate what process was used and there is no compelling reason in my mind to believe that it was the revised Nov 1996 recovery process. If you look at the statement closely, it could just as easily be indicating that the process used could be used for commercial development of the project; but, that it is more likely that a different process and possibly more economical process will be used. It is my understanding from recent information that the revised Nov 1996 recovery process can be used right now with existing equipment to process several tons per day and could be expanded economically to commercial production; however, if the soaking time can be reduced, significant improvements in the economy of the process can be realized. Based on the information that I have, I think that the question is not "Can an economical commercial recovery process be developed?" but rather "Which process will prove to be the most economical and what will be the ultimate cost per ounce to mine, process and restore?" Reference your comment about the FAQ's and IPM's comparison of the numbers from the modified fire assay to the numbers obtained from the March 1996 chloride leach method. I do not understand this comparison either. It seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges. I do not understand why IPM chose to do this. It could be because the value of the numbers do compare favorably and they were obtained from the same geographical area. But, that is a little like saying that apples and oranges are about the same size and they came from the same farm. It could also be that they had no prior existing recovery numbers from this geographical area in order to use them. I do not think this means that the higher recovery numbers are no longer valid. I think we will see these higher recovery numbers again when we get back to talking about recovery. I do think that the assay used to produce the numbers for the 14 Nov 1997 press release is not producing nearly as good numbers as the Auric fire assay would have on the same ore; but, the good news is, the new fire assay is confirmed as consistently repeatable. I think there is some value in considering the Auric fire assay. It did work pretty well and produced some good numbers. The problem was not that the Auric fire assay was producing gold that was not there. The problem was that the Auric fire assay failed to meet the stringent requirements for not varying more than the required percentage over a great number of repeat tests on the same ore. Apparently, it was pretty close, at least Auric thought so, but not quite good enough for IPM or the independent lab. Consistent enough or not, I personnally do not think the Auric fire assay was manufacturing gold from ore that contained none. That being said, I also would like to see a fire assay confirmed that produced numbers similar to those that the Auric fire assay produced. I think that concluding that because the Auric fire assay failed to be consistently repeatable enough to be confirmed by a rgistered lab means that the Nov 1996 recovery process was wrong as well, is back to comparing apples and oranges again. I don't think that one has anything to do with the other. I hope this helps some. I wish I had precise facts to give you as in the case of my earlier post. However, in the case of these concerns that you express, I can only give you my opinions based on the conversations that I have had and the observations that I have made which are probably different than yours and thus the difference in perception. There are some legitimate concerns here as with any developing company. Let's hope that some of us can distinguish between legitimate concerns and the mindless dribble that some of these shorters pour out so liberally. I hope at some point that big brother Bateman takes their little brother IPM under their wing and announce to the world that together they are jointly going to build a world class mine. But then this is just my wishful thinking. Best to you and yours on this holiday. I think it is time for me to get back to the family and more important things. I'm also going back to occassional Lurkdom. I am a long term investor in IPM and as such I try not to watch the minute to minute and day to day happenings of this stock or this thread. As you have probably observed, it is rare that I take time to post on this thread, and there are times that I don't even look at this thread for days, weeks and sometimes even months when I happen to be traveling the country, so please forgive me if I don't see and answer a post to me. I felt that you posted some reasonable and legitimate concerns that deserved a response even if most of this response is just my own conclusions based on my own conversations and experiences. But then sharing these is sometimes helpful. Bye for now, Rick

To: Furry Otter who wrote (28533)	11/28/1997 8:05:00 AM
From: Bruno	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi Furry FYI I understand AuRIC whilst under COC were able to produce higher figures than have been published to date from Bateman and BD They were also prepared to verify a costing for the process of approximately $15/ton to extract gold, silver and platinum. Even at the low figures of 0.035 for gold only we have $10/ton of gold. I understand Auric were consistantly receiving considerably in excess of this. Even 0.1opt leaves us with a profitable mine. In return for releasing this information they wanted $2.5-$3m in cash and stock.(They would only have wanted the stock if they felt Black rock was viable). IPM refused this about six weeks ago. Bateman offered to conduct the tests at a fraction of the cost. The damaging results were then published. Furthermore any PP will depend on a stronger share price than we have today......there is no financing even remotely in sight at the moment. At least one of the major fund managers is auditing this stock to check for impropriety. The resulting scenario could include an egm called to replace the management. Or a takeover Or worse we could face Chapter 11. The conclusion thus far appears to be there is a potential gold mine here with reserves over 0.1 opt with a leaching process compared to 0.035opt in the fire essays with AuRIC prepared to take the lead. Finally none of the respectable mining companies have enjoyed working with the likes of lee who is regarded as a charlatan....hence their short involvement....it's a question of amateurs and professionals. The company is being run incompetantly. But the ground has tremendous potential.....the fear is will any of the shareholders benefit?