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: go4it who wrote (28691)	11/29/1997 11:41:00 PM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi Chuck, Always to glad to hear from you. I'll try to answer your questions. << .... where did Bateman say the process was EITHER uneconomic or yielded low recovery? >> Bateman didn't say much of anything, outright. The PR said the process probably wouldn't be used. If the process were BOTH economic and yielded high recovery, do you really think IPM would have omitted the numbers from the press release? The fact is that you and I and everyone else were expecting BD (and perhaps Bateman) to sign-off on THE recovery process that was touted in the press releases of December 19, February 13, May 22, etc...THE recovery process that was touted as yielding 0.25+ opt Au with no degradation....THE recovery process that was turned over to BD for verification. We didn't get that. We got a process that won't be used, and we got no recovery numbers; AND we got a $2+ gap down in the stock the next trading day with more carnage following. The press release of November 14 basically ignored the prior SERIES of press releases and inserted a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about a "nominated recovery process", whatever that means. (IMO purposely uninformative!) The failure to recognize expectations raised in earlier press releases is SOP for IPM. No explanations; just ignore what was announced previously, almost as though we would forget. Mr. Market didn't forget! The press release of November 14 stated that "....the [recovery] process utilized will most likely not be used for commercial development of the project [so it's useless]." In a later paragraph IPM states, "....Bateman will also be providing the expertise to assist in the development of a cost-effective process to extract metals [as opposed to the present process?]." In his letter to CL/Frank, Le stated that the recovery from the "nominated" process was "low". If, as some argue, the recovery was low, solely by dint of bad luck in sampling BRB dirt (not because the process was inefficient), then the process will not be used because it is not economic. So I infer that the process was (at least) INEFFICIENT. To turn this around, do you have any data-based rationale to cause you to believe that the "nominated" process is economic or is efficient? << Why just 2 trenches? How many do you wish they had taken? They wanted a verification of the fire assay not a resource calculation and Bateman went to virgin ground to do their COC. >> According to the company, verification of the recovery process was being turned over to BD in May. What was finally reported in November were 2 20-pound samples apparently dug by Bateman. We know nothing of what BD did or found when the recovery process was turned over to them. Why IS that Charles? Why didn't they report representative sampling from Grid 1? We were led to believe (most recently by Matt/??/?????) that the consultants were taking bulk samples from the center of Grid 1 and from each of the four quadrants of that grid. Truthfully, isn't that what you were expecting? Those 5 bulk samples certainly wouldn't have proven a resource; but they certainly would have given us a "representative" look at Grid 1 and probably would have put the stock well over $10 if they had shown what we had been led to expect. Our consultants certainly had sufficient time to do 5 bulk samples! What was the point of the progressive up-scaling of the recovery process (again, reported in multiple PRs), if not to show an economic, efficient, bulk recovery process? At 20 pounds each, Bateman's data don't even represent a BULK recovery process. We've been anxiously, hopefully, often impatiently, awaiting the "BD sign-off" ON RECOVERY for nearly a year. What we got were three holes and a couple of trenchs with chain of custody. We -- and I think this includes you -- were expecting "0.25+" bulk recovery from representative sites within Grid 1 and at low cost. What we got was a modified FA, for gold only, showing 0.03+ from a few holes and a couple of trenches. What we got was no explanation of what happened to the previously very successful scaled up recovery process. I think to say that "They [IPM] wanted a verification of the fire assay not a resource calculation ...." muddies the water. They/we WANTED a verification of the bulk recovery process on representative samples from BRB, and we were HOPING for a verification of a fire assay; both recovery and assay were expected to show about 1 opt of PMs. The June 24 press release stated that BD was in the process of verifying the RECOVERY PROCESS that permitted AuRIC to RECOVER about 8 gm of gold (and about 8 gm of platinum and about 7 gm of palladium) from 1752 pounds of dirt. "Gold in hand", remember? It is not helpful or honest to contend that what was announced is what ANYONE wanted or expected. Charles, I didn't respond to your previous post to me because you were leaving on your hunting trip. My contention is that there is NOTHING BUT THE COMPANY'S WORD to lead anyone to believe that there is more than about 0.05 gold and some "measurable" amount of PGEs at BRB. That's all IPM has been able to prove (with third party, COC verification) in the past two years. Recovery is another matter; although, I'm cautiously willing to accept the recovery numbers from the December 1995 BD report (i.e., 0.05--0.06 opt Au) despite the serious flaws in that report. Perhaps it doesn't bother you; but I find it very disturbing that when IPM's senior geological staff does the digging, the recovery is about 0.8 opt. When an independent entity does the digging the recovery is "low", and presumably not worth reporting. A brief trip down memory lane: Toronto, November 5, 1996 Activity Report: Recovery and Assay Update Previously IPM stated that it has initiated a number of gold recovery and assay test programs of BRX material. The test work includes: Gravity Concentration Bulk Scale Floatation Bulk Scale Leach Amenability Selection of Final Fire Assay on Head Material The test programs are nearing completion. Thereafter, the company will request that the conclusions be corroborated by mining engineer consultants Behre Dolbear & Co., Inc. This will lead to the immediate processing of samples from IPM's exploration drill program completed in July and allow management to accelerate the development of BRX.