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: O. H. Rundell who wrote (28712)	11/30/1997 12:24:00 AM
From: Alan Vennix	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 35569

Very good summary, O. H. Let me add just a few comments, not in the way of arguement but just to present some additional food for thought. The recovery process that IPM was testing from early 1997 until mid-year or thereabouts, was conducted primarily in the bulk testing facilities at Friendship Metals. Recovery results presented at the AGM were conducted in those facilities with the final product refined and reported by AuRIC. Presumably, BD was conducting verification tests in those same facilities, the results of which have not been reported. By the time Bateman began conducting verification tests in September, the FM facility was no longer available to IPM or its consultants. This resulted in Bateman having to use the mobile trailer where testing was limited to 20 lb samples. Experimental conditions may also have been limited versus what was done at Friendship. I assume it was this set of experimental conditions that was referred to as the "nominated recovery process", which Bateman deemed not suitable for commercial purposes. Was the process as tested in the mobile trailer different than the process that was conducted at Friendship in bulk quantities and reported at the AGM as capable of recovering 0.25+oz/ton gold? Did Bateman condemn the process as tested at Friendship or just the 20 lb process tested in the mobile trailer? IMO, neither of these questions have been adequately addressed and the possibility still exists that the process IPM tested in bulk at FM, or some modification thereof, may still be under consideration by Bateman. My understanding from the Nov 14 PR is that Bateman is researching a number of processes in various test facilities (the PR states Bateman will be using "contract test work facilities"). This to me doesn't mean that Bateman has necessarily condemned the IPM process, only that they are looking at alternatives. It may be somewhat of a stretch, but it's possible to conclude from what has been released that, (1) The "nominated recovery process" tested in the mobile trailer is not suitable for commercial application, (2) Results obtained from testing the 20 lb samples in the mobile facilities were "low" (whatever meaning that has), but (3) Bateman is researching applicable recovery processes, possibly including a variant of the bulk process IPM tested at FM which recovered 0.25+ oz/ton gold. FWIW Alan

To: O. H. Rundell who wrote (28712)	11/30/1997 11:11:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

OH, Your post seems precise and accurate to me. I didn't consider the letter to Frank in my thinking and that was the part that I was missing and asking for. No, the events and that have occurred and the unanswered questions bother me to no end. I am furious with the way some things were handled. It is possible that the breakup in the marriage between Frienship and IPM has everything to do with the sample sizes that can be tested. Like you I expected the recovery numbers that we have been told about and didn't get but where do we go from here. The metals are there. We can now add silver to the list of metals. I believe that we are going to have high grade channels running through the property (just a belief not fact) like maxam and GPGI have. One thing is certain in my mind and that is things need to change and I think giving share holders accurate updates would be a good place to start. Thanks for your response. Chuck