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 (28538)	11/26/1997 6:44:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Yes, I did mean May 1997 for that PR, thanks. I understand a "recovery process" to involve two concepts, what you get when its over, and what it cost you to get that. As far as I know, IPM has never stated what the costs of its process would be, presumably because they didn't know. They did, however, state what they thought the outcome would be: .25 on head grade ore that had yielded much lower using te chloride leach method, see the December 19 1996 PR. Now IPM sez that bateman sez this method is not economic. I assumed this meant they have enough of a handle on the costs to know it will be too expensive, even with .25 opt in some locations. I did not think this meant the previous recovery numbers were wrong, because IPM did not say they were in the November 14 PR. Now that IPM is referring back to the March 1996 .046 chloride leach numbers as a benchmark, however, I fear that the November 1996 recoveries have been debunked. The rejection of the AuRIC fire assay, which confirmed numbers derived from the November 1996 process, is not making me feel any better. If IPM has reason to know that its previous reported recoveries are WRONG, as opposed to NON-ECONOMIC, the company has an obligation to come out and say so. If the November 1996 numbers are out the window because they were wrong, then we are truly back to .046, and it is not simply a question of where on BRX Bateman got their samples from. I do not want IPM to wait until it comes up with another recovery process before it answers that question. Regards, Otter

To: kimberley who wrote (28538)	11/28/1997 2:23:00 PM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

the company announced a recovery process, but didn't state it wasn't commercial. Kim, this is a major portion of the problem. Either the company spent months on a process that wasn't economic (or that didn't work, despite their claims to the contrary). Did the company knowingly spend months on an uneconomic process? If so, why did the company waste the time and money? If the company didn't know that the process was uneconomic, why not? Of course, according to Bateman the process they used was uneconomic and yielded low recovery. Finally, after all these months, why weren't the recovery samples taken from a number of representative areas at Black Rock. Why just 2 trenches? Two 20-pound samples? Where are the 900 kg samples taken from the center and each of the 4 quadrants of Black Rock? Just doesn't compute. O. H. eyes opened