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: Bruno who wrote (28661)	11/28/1997 9:29:00 AM
From: Furry Otter	Respond to of 35569

Well you certainly said a mouthful Bruno, the plot certainly thickens if this is so I'll take good ground/bad management over bad ground/good management anyday...the former can be rectified, the latter cannot Let's wait and see what happens...if you are right about the AuRIC deal, I cannot believe IPM will just walk away from the process (or that its shareholders will allow it to) This thing could turn around very quickly, for a variety of reasons. Stay tuned Regards, Otter

To: Bruno who wrote (28661)	11/28/1997 9:31:00 AM
From: Bob Aldridge	Respond to of 35569

Bruno, Thanks for your point of view, I suppose the main question that comes out of this is why would IPM/Bateman rejected the AuRIC fire assay and recovery process if the claims are true ? Maybe their claim that results are too inconsistent is valid. Maybe they think they can do it themselves and save up to $3m or maybe for the sake of consistency they feel it is better at this stage to go with a much more robust process and suffer lesser grades. Whatever the reason there is certainly a lot the company needs to tell its shareholders and it certainly sounds like some sort of rationalisation will be necessary. That said, still feel that the March 1996 leach results will be at least matched by the current fire assay program and that the only real risk here is an economical recovery process. Certainly still worth the gamble.

To: Bruno who wrote (28661)	11/28/1997 10:48:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 35569

Bruno...I've also heard that about extorting millions from IPM for the assay proceedure, but that's not what Batemen says. OTOH, I also heard Batemen were not hired, but joined along for curiosity's sake. In so far as the rest of your post, I hope many here agree with it as it could be the only thing that will save this Co's ass. - denis

To: Bruno who wrote (28661)	11/28/1997 11:47:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 35569

<<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.>> Bruno: If this scenario is true, IPM lied by saying the Auric Fire Assay was rejected because it did not withstand the scrutiny of third party review.

To: Bruno who wrote (28661)	11/30/1997 3:11:00 PM
From: Mark Bartlett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Bruno, <<In return for releasing this information they wanted $2.5-$3m in cash and stock.(They (AUric) would only have wanted the stock if they felt Black rock was viable).>> IPM is faced with the necessity of finding more financing, possible bankruptcy and a complete lack of credibilty, .... in light of the fact they have managed to squander 40 million bucks so far - the price AUric was supposed to have requested seems mighty cheap. I would bet that 99% of the shareholders on this thread would be happy to accept their terms at present - when one considers this PM find is suppose to be worth billions -what's a few million. MB