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: whatitis who wrote (28629)	11/27/1997 10:47:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Respond to of 35569

Thank you Rick. Re: the reference to non-economic, i had recalled that term from the FAQ. In reading it over again, it is not there, but the response to Q.6 could be inferred to mean IPM has no economic process. But you are correct, IPM has not actually said this. Your udnerstanding regarding the state of the November 1996 process, i.e. that it works and can produce gold in the amounts specified (given the right ore, of course) was mine as well until they started comparing this new FA to the old March 1996 numbers. You have given some reasonable explanations for this, as has Bob Aldridge. Thanks for taking the time to give your thoughts on this. I am still long on IPM (as I suppose you know), and I am glad to have any insights you can give. Best of luck. Regards, Otter

To: whatitis who wrote (28629)	11/28/1997 1:40:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 35569

It seems to me that some are engaging in wishful thinking. Aaron Cathcart's post is now being held out as providing some reasonable hope that the November 96 recovery process should not be abandoned. Let's examine this logic: <<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.>> No, the November 14 press release does not say the recovery process is non-commercial, but the FAQ does say this. <<But since the recovery method is considered by Bateman to be non-commercial, they believed the amounts were not relevant.>> The conjecture that they didn't even use the November 1996 recovery process is astounding to me. If they didn't use this one, what did they use? Another process that recovers less or is less economical? Why would they create such high expectations, and then not use their best process for verification? Further evidence that IPM is back to square 1 with a recovery process is provided by another FAQ. <<Q6. Do you still feel that an economical recovery process can be developed?>> The phrasing of this question "Do you still feel..." is a clear implication that IPM's existing recovery process is not commercial. If you take IPM's statements at face value, then you must conclude that they currently have no "commercial" recovery process. If they are not to be taken at face value (i.e. things are better than they have been made out to be by IPM in its PR and FAQ) then there must be a reason why IPM wanted to see the price drop (e.g. to give someone with deep pockets a sweetheart deal on IPM shares). Either way, I don't like it.