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 (28539)	11/26/1997 7:09:00 PM
From: John Wetterau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Otter, quite right. But management has never admitted anything to be wrong. They have misled us at will and have no credibility. If BD or Bateman go on record with something, we can probably believe it. Nothing this management releases means anything excepting, perhaps, the numbers in the 10Q. Frustrating. John

To: Furry Otter who wrote (28539)	11/27/1997 12:59:00 AM
From: kimberley	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35569

Furry, I think here is where you get into the nitty gritty of why people are so devided on this issue now. You are correct, IPM has never stated the cost of extraction. They have alluded to it being low, and I say this from my own personal experience, not what someone on the thread posted. I was told it was low... and I know of others who were told the same thing. Did IPM not know if the process was economic? If they didn't, that in inself is disturbing. Now IPM said in Dec. 1996 that they had a process that yielded .25 opt. BD was to verify this process on coc dirt. IPM issued a statement in the spring stating there was no degradation in the recovery process ( a red flag??), and shareholders continued to wait for BD verification of this. Lycopodium was brought in, even bigger recoveries were announced at the agm, Bateman arrives... finally the big announcement comes, and it gives values in the same range as the 1995 BD report. Is everything in between negated? Yes, for the time being. IPM is claiming a hugh deposit, a controversal deposit, and the market is demanding 3rd party verification of everythng. Until they provide that, we have .04ish, with no economical recovery. If you want to believe the company is very close, then you buy on faith. If you prefer to have confirmation before commiting $$, you wait for it. Regarding what the company is obligated to report... you are the attorney, you'd know better than I. It's so grey... the fire assay verified the recovery, but now the fire assay isn't valid. Bateman acknowledged recovering gold and pgm's, but said the process wasn't economic. So is the recovery process valid? But you are asking if the recovery numbers are wrong, as opposed to being uneconomic... I don't see any way to know this until you get a sign off on recovery. Do you? As I said before, it's more of a question of faith than facts at this point, as I see it. Now see what a few beers does to me?? I'm writing in Lew/Rod proportions!<vbg> Oh, one more thing. I hope you didn't mean what you said about not posting anymore... I agree with you, this thread is crap right now, but your posts are an asset. Hope you don't leave. best, and Happy Thanksgiving, Kim

To: Furry Otter who wrote (28539)	11/27/1997 9:13:00 AM
From: Bob Aldridge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

I have puzzled over this myself many times and this is the situation as I see it. Providing no errors or funny business has occurred recovered gold is recovered gold - This cannot be disputed and the ore must contain this metal. The problem as I see it, however, is that we have metal as fine particles and micro clusters i.e. very small groups of atoms. IPM knew that they had the fine gold as it leached (0.046oz/ton - March 1996) but instead of perfecting a fire assay and recovery process on this they went for glory. By November 1996 a recovery break through occurred and by June 1997 they had a process that recovered about 1 oz/ton of metal and a fire assay that worked on the gold at 0.30 oz/ton !! Great we all thought, but it now appears that the economics of the recovery process and the consistency of the fire assay was just not good enough to satisfy Bateman. IPM must then have been persuaded by Bateman to drop all research and development work on the micro clusters and concentrate on what could be fire assayed and recovered with their assistance. Bateman I suggest have saved IPM. After only a few months IPM have stopped chasing the micro cluster glory and the largest deposit in history and are back on track with a verified fire assay for gold and, as I understand it, good progress on a platinum assay and recovery process. It's no wonder that that Behre Dolbear felt uncomfortable working with micro clusters but they just didn't have the strength or incentive to shake the IPM dream. In conclusion I believe BRX does contain in excess of 1 oz/ton but at this time the technology and processing costs for a micro cluster deposit are just beyond them. IPM will now concentrate on the fine gold which is really attainable and I believe a first grid reserve in excess of 0.1oz/ton for gold/platinum/palladium plus significant silver is very, very likely. An economic recovery process still needs work but with Bateman in control I estimate the likely chance of success to be at least 50%. Given adequate financing, this makes the first grid worth $6/share NOW, however with the current poor market sentiment and a declining gold price this will not be attained for many months but we have this and a lot, lot more to look forward to. Hairy Hamster.