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 (28758)	11/30/1997 10:14:00 PM
From: Furry Otter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<<their greatest blunder to date>> Let's see...$3 million licensing fee with AuRIC, compared to $100 million in lost market cap without AuRIC. That would be a 97 million dollar mistake, assuming the stock did not move at all after the PR. Seems to me we need to get to the bottom of this AuRIC thing <<IMO the company sometimes leaks smoke>> Did this come from the company? What does AuRIC say? Such strangeness! Regards, Otter

To: O. H. Rundell who wrote (28758)	11/30/1997 10:35:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Well, O.H., "If you would read the full text of the reports from Bateman and from BD, you'd know the answer" is interesting! Assume you got them from Kim and are about to summarize them here or privately :-) bj

To: O. H. Rundell who wrote (28758)	12/1/1997 2:22:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

OH << If the story were true and if IPM had paid up, what would the stock be worth now?>> Now that isn't fair. If the story were true and the process turned out to not allow itself to commercial operation then what would have happened after that revelation. Instead of falling from $5 it would have fallen from what $50 ... $500 what I don't know but the debicle certainly would have been alot worse than it was. Personally I think it would have been nice to have had a third party sign something, even if it were AuRic, that stated something to the effect that results were 0.25+ au but that the process was non-commercial thus we cannot use these numbers. If for no other reason than credibility. The thing that I don't understand is we are seeing these exact same numbers or better from GPGI, Mxam and Naxof but you don't believe that IPM doesn't have it without 3rd party verification? I don't understand that.